WotC WotC's Chris Perkins On D&D's Inclusivity Processes Going Forward

Over on D&D Beyond, WotC's Chris Perkins has written a blog entry about how the company's processes have been changed to improve the way the D&D studio deals with harmful content and inclusivity. This follows recent issues with racist content in Spelljammer: Adventures in Space, and involves working with external cultural consultants.

The studio’s new process mandates that every word, illustration, and map must be reviewed by multiple outside cultural consultants prior to publication.

Leveling Up Our Creative Process: Learnings From Spelljammer

In this blog post, I'll talk about how we in the D&D Studio are changing our review process following the problematic content that appeared in Spell...

www.dndbeyond.com

 

[beancounter]

A publisher deciding what to publish and what not to publish is censorship?

No, it's not censorship (at least not directly). The issue is that they feel compelled to publish or not publish certain things.

Of course they have the right to publish whatever they want, and they are motivated by the bottom line. But that's not the underlying point.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Self selected by liking video games and rpgs? Or books and rpgs?

It might also stems from a cultural divide.

If you're from a country where slavery has been banned since 1365 and wasn't practiced for two century before that, having someone complain about a slave race is as weird as it would be to complain about bows, because of their treacherous use by Englishmen in Agincourt. It has absolutely no relevancy to anything current. On the other hand, in a country where you can meet great-grandsons of actual slaves (and, maybe, have in the same gaming group a great-grandson of slave-owner), where they recently voted to ban slavery in the latest poll because slavery is apparently still allowed by the constitution as a penal sentence, and where descendant of slaves suffer from actual economic backlash from their direct ancestors, talking about slavery is much more divisive and touchy. Superficial knowledge of the other countries isn't enough to understand the problem and frame it into something understandable and relatable to someone coming from the first's country cultural background.

In the Sam and Joe punching example, I guess everyone, as a third party observer, can see what is problematic with people punching each others: it is a reasonably common (universal?) experience that one doesn't like to be punched and so, even if you're not punched, you can empathize with the punched people and not include punching. However, "having a relation with slavers or slavery" is much less universal and as long as you're not from within the countries where slavery is still a hot CURRENT and RELEVANT topic it is difficult to make the parallel between "punching" and "slavery" without being given a proper explanation. Hence the large number of people puzzled by some declarations on other Internet board from other cultures.

That's why serfdom doesn't raise an eyebrow, while slavery does. As far as I know, nobody is affected by serfdom and has been a in relevant past.

 

[Vaalingrade]

White dude here. I was flabbergasted that WotC went forward with the publication of the Hadozee as it was. I don't think it was a deliberate decision on their part, I just couldn't believe that nobody in the process stopped and said, "Uh, have you really looked at this?" I don't think it was unreasonable for you or anyone else to look at that and find it offensive.

At this point though, it seems like they just can't stop hitting the 'slave' button without an adult in the room. No matter the risk, every book with a new race or monster HAS to have slaves. I feel that's the underlying issue we're up against here.

 

[Umbran]

That works both ways though. Most people who complained about Hadozee being racist towards African American or Oriental Adventure to Asians were neither of those and also just a 3rd party and just assumed that they would be offended by those books, or even as the first post in this line of discussion said, assumed that they would make the same associations of Hadozee = African Americans instead of fantasy monkey people.

With respect, I already covered this. Yes, most of us aren't of those demographics.

In the Joe and Sam analogy, those of us who are not Sam are basically noting that Joe, really, shouldn't be punching anyone who doesn't really deserve it. And, if that punch was accidental, then Joe should be more careful about where his fists go.

Your rights to swing your arms around end at the other person's nose. You wanna push back on that?

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

Your rights to swing your arms around end at the other person's nose. You wanna push back on that?

Who gets to decide what the arms are and what the nose is in this analogy? I'd argue that my right to read, write, publish, and own material free from censorship, even if the censorship is "merely" the result of the outrage of a vocal minority, is at least as important as the right of a theoretical person who theoretically decides something is offensive to be offended.

 

[Incenjucar]

Who gets to decide what the arms are and what the nose is in this analogy? I'd argue that my right to read, write, publish, and own material free from censorship, even if the censorship is "merely" the result of the outrage of a vocal minority, is at least as important as the right of a theoretical person who theoretically decides something is offensive to be offended.

WotC, which is not a government body, is not stopping you from doing any of this. They are choosing to not be involved in such things.

 

[Azzy]

Who gets to decide what the arms are and what the nose is in this analogy? I'd argue that my right to read, write, publish, and own material free from censorship, even if the censorship is "merely" the result of the outrage of a vocal minority, is at least as important as the right of a theoretical person who theoretically decides something is offensive to be offended.

"theoretical"?

I can find actual people. Some of whom are already on this thread.

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

WotC, which is not a government body, is not stopping you from doing any of this. They are choosing to not be involved in such things.

100% agreed. But that doesn't mean it isn't censorship. In the 80s, TSR removed all mention of demons and devils from D&D because of the pressure of a vocal minority. Yes, they made that decision freely and you could argue it wasn't some sort of government-mandated censorship, but if content is controlled by economic coercion, it's the same thing.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I don't think it was a deliberate decision on their part, I just couldn't believe that nobody in the process stopped and said, "Uh, have you really looked at this?" I don't think it was unreasonable for you or anyone else to look at that and find it offensive.

Someone may have said something, and they were ignored. During the LevelUp playtest I warned of a potential landmine:

Surprised y'all went with Minstrel over Troubadour for a subclass name, considering the unsavory association the former has.

I guess they know now that they're going to have to be extremely circumspect about how any character of that archetype can be depicted now.

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

"theoretical"?

I can find actual people. Some of whom are already on this thread.

For sure, and I can find actual people who say this is a non-issue. My use of the word "theoretical" is meant to suggest that the howling throngs who compelled WoTC to make these changes were not championing themselves and any real trauma or victimization, but rather were championing a theoretical notion that somewhere someone would be offended if they squinted hard enough.