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

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

Censorship is a legal matter, and WotC is not a government agency.

It's coercion by the audience, such as myself. Neither WotC nor their customers are under any obligation to support offensive, non-inclusive, or insensitive material.

 

[Blue Orange]

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.

I kind of disagree. You're implicitly arguing (even if unintentionally) that consumers shouldn't be able to complain about things in products they don't like. The country was a lot more conservative back in the 80s and the devil thing bothered a lot of people. So, out it went.

There are right-leaning OSR games (Cha'alt, Adventurer Conqueror King, Lamentations of the Flame Princess), BTW, and even a fascist game (MYFAROG). They haven't really caught on to the same degree.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

this is an interesting argument. However one that dovetails out of enworld spheres... the long and short of it is (right now) the people with the money decide BUT!
Big BUT!
we live in the internet age and I promise you will find things people find offensive published online. You will find D&D 3pp/homebrew that will do that... but asking the WotC to do so is going to allways be about money.

 

[Azzy]

For sure, and I can find actual people who say this is a non-issue.

However, those people don't negate the offense.

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.

Using terms like "howling throngs" to dismiss very real people isn't exactly helping your case. Nor is rest of that paragraph. We get it, you're in a position that it doesn't affect you and you think it doesn't affect anyone of note.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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

This is an example of the cultural divide I spoke of. If all the association you have with Minstrel is this one:

You would be very surprised to see it's problematic to have a minstrel character. Use of English as a way to communicate doesn't imply deep knowledge of the cultural background and most notably the minstrel shows that you're refering to.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

As an African American D&D player myself, one thing the black community of the USA has moved to in the last 10 years is the idea that the group offended should not be the ones required to constantly announce offense and 3rd parties should step their game up.

 

[pauldanieljohnson]

However, those people don't negate the offense.


Using terms like "howling throngs" to dismiss very real people isn't exactly helping your case. Nor is rest of that paragraph. We get it, you're in a position that it doesn't affect you and you think it doesn't affect anyone of note.

More precisely, I'd say that I can see the effect. Publishers like WotC are being put in a box where a censorship panel reviews what they can and cannot publish. You can rename that censorship panel and call it cultural sensitivity expert or some other thing, but it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck.

And I'm weighing that notion, which smacks of the sort of totalitarianism I thought our entire society was constructed to avoid, against the notion that one paragraph in an RPG supplement is worth this sort of collective handwringing.

 

[Shiroiken]

We will see when/if the next "scandal" happens.

Call me cynical, but there will be another one eventually. Some people just wake up looking for things to be offended by.

 

[Ixal]

As an African American D&D player myself, one thing the black community of the USA has moved to in the last 10 years is the idea that the group offended should not be the ones required to constantly announce offense and 3rd parties should step their game up.

So do you feel offended on behalf or Norwegians for the portrayal of Vikings and NotVikings in D&D? How do you know they are not deeply offended by that?
Or on behalf or very religious people for the inclusion of magic and demons?

 

[Incenjucar]

More precisely, I'd say that I can see the effect. Publishers like WotC are being put in a box where a censorship panel reviews what they can and cannot publish. You can rename that censorship panel and call it cultural sensitivity expert or some other thing, but it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck.

And I'm weighing that notion, which smacks of the sort of totalitarianism I thought our entire society was constructed to avoid, against the notion that one paragraph in an RPG supplement is worth this sort of collective handwringing.

I assure you that there is plenty of sufficiently offensive, insensitive RPG material out there, if that is something you worry about being denied.