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

 

[Azzy]

Only if the 3 kids actually feel bullied because if they don't you have 15 kids bullying the other 5 (the 2 to stop and the 3 to feel bullied)

Your logic and takeaway on this is kind of incoherent.

 

[Ixal]

Um, what?

We could just believe the three kids when they say they're being bullied and put an end to it. Why wouldn't we do that?

Because that is not what is happening.
Its not the 3 kids saying they are being bullied, its the 15 kids saying the 3 must feel bullied by the 2.

I agree, let the 3 kids speak up. But that is not what happened with the Hadozee or Oriental Adventures.

 

[CleverNickName]

Because that is not what is happening.
Its not the 3 kids saying they are being bullied, its the 15 kids saying the 3 must feel bullied by the 2.

Yikes.
Suffice to say, I disagree with you. I'll be leaving now.

 

[Azzy]

Because that is not what is happening.
Its not the 3 kids saying they are being bullied, its the 15 kids saying the 3 must feel bullied by the 2.

Bullying is usually pretty damned obvious. And who says the three being bullied haven't said anything?

I agree, let the 3 kids speak up. But that is not what happened with the Hadozee or Oriental Adventures.

Yes it is, you're just ignoring the voices of those that are speaking up.

 

[darjr]

Because that is not what is happening.
Its not the 3 kids saying they are being bullied, its the 15 kids saying the 3 must feel bullied by the 2.

I agree, let the 3 kids speak up. But that is not what happened with the Hadozee or Oriental Adventures.

Yes it's exactly what happened. You keep saying it wasn't and that is blatantly false. From the Asians Represent podcast that was pilloried about it for OA and the POC professor who pointed out the combined issues of the Hadozee through the versions culminating with new box sets depiction.

This falsity keeps getting repeated to try to make it seem like a fact and it just isn't.

 

[Mecheon]

Because that is not what is happening.
Its not the 3 kids saying they are being bullied, its the 15 kids saying the 3 must feel bullied by the 2.

What are you on about? Mate, are we talking about the same situation? This is exactly what happened.

Do you.... Want links to the two situations that happened and who exactly brought them up? Because, I think you're mis-remembering.

I mean I, as the white, pale, palid Australian I am, just called out the Hadozee on being "A bad take of Planet of the Apes (A movie series that deals with race and should have been looked at more carefully before doing something with it)". Did you confuse the other complaints with that particular take?

 

[Velderan]

i mean if 3 kids in class are being bullied by 2 kids in the class don't we WANT the 15 kids to stand up and say "Hey, those 2 are the problem" even if the 15 is more then the 3...

Only if the 3 kids actually feel bullied because if they don't you have 15 kids bullying the other 5 (the 2 to stop and the 3 to feel bullied)

It's right there in his quote "3 kids in class are being bullied". Do they actually need to specify in their relatively simple example that the 3 kids yelled "help I'm being bullied"?

 

[Ixal]

Bullying is usually pretty damned obvious. And who says the three being bullied haven't said anything?

Yes it is, you're just ignoring the voices of those that are speaking up.

As you are when the voices are not saying what you want to hear (I again point to page 4 for an example or the original )

But you are correct, bullying is obvious. The problem with the Hadozee or Oriental Adventures is that it is not. At least not to me and not to many other persons. And that includes many people on whos behalf people feel offended for. And yes, its completely possible, even likely, that nationality has a effect on that and that as a non American the connection monkey = black person is far more far fetched than it is for you.

And on the other side many people are offended or could be offended, yet their offence does not matter and cause the same kind of response and support because they are not likeable enough (fundamental Christians) or otherwise do not fullfill an arbitrary criteria outside of their control (their culture being deemed an oppressor for example).
For you this criteria might be obvious and logical, for me this arbitrary distinction between people who it is ok to be offended for and people whos offence does not matter devalues this entire idea.

Edit:

Yes it's exactly what happened. You keep saying it wasn't and that is blatantly false. From the Asians Represent podcast that was pilloried about it for OA and the POC professor who pointed out the combined issues of the Hadozee through the versions culminating with new box sets depiction.

This falsity keeps getting repeated to try to make it seem like a fact and it just isn't.

Aren't the people from Asian Represents Canadian?

 

[Hussar]

Offense of depiction and Offense of existence are two very different things.

This is really an excellent point and something to keep in mind.

The Satanic Panic Christians who objected to demons in D&D were not offended for themselves. It wasn't that D&D was depicting Christians in a bad light. They weren't depicting Christians at all. The Satanic Panic objections were not based around how a group of people were being portrayed in the fiction.

On the other hand, the issue with, say, Hadozee, is based on how black people were portrayed in media in the past and how this portrayal mimics (unintentionally I'm very sure, but, it still mirrors it) racist depictions of black people.

There is a very big difference there.

Now, as far as depicting Vikings and viking culture, there is another difference as well. Vikings, AFAIK, in D&D are never depicted as victims, or, worse still, actually enjoying being enslaved - which is what Hadozee were shown as in the past. Vikings in D&D are always depicted in strong, positive terms. Which, again, being inaccurate in a depiction is not the same thing as being offensive.

 

[Irlo]

In my experience they do.
There are some pretty good example for that from outside the RPG business, like where US students got offended by a fashion show with chinese dresses worn by Americans, but the Chinese people saw this as advertisment for their industry and the "superiority" of their culture, but I am not sure if they go too off topic.
But even within the D&D world, the complains about Oriental Adventure did not come from people living or having grown up in Asia, but mostly from Americans with no or only small connections to Asian cultures. Yet they complained how Asian culture was represented.

Wow.

I am in no way going to debate with you whether the OA podcasters have standing to express complaints.

I didn't listen to the whole thing. Only about four hours of it. But, from what I heard, I am certain:

• They spoke for themselves. Any offense they felt and expressed was their own.
• They didn't tell anyone else to feel offended.

Another thing is, by immediately jumping to support one type of offence you are drowning out the other. The guy on page 4 who complained that people automatically think monkey = African American and are reinforcing this connection by assuming he must be offended by space monkeys that were uplifted to be slaves? His offence gets dismissed because people immediately supported the Hadozee offence. But how many affected people actually made that connection without the internet outrage on behalf of others?

I believe that the unidentifed quoted party was offended by people's reactions to the Hazodee. No one here suggested that he wasn't offended by people's reactions to the Hazodee. No one here assumed he must be offended by the portrayals of the Hazodee. No one that I've seen complain about portrayals of the Hazodee have told anyone else that they must also be offended by the portrayals of the Hazodee.

Note: The concerns about the racist portrayal of Hadozee (like the concerns about the racist portrayal of orcs) that I've seen are not based on anyone automatically associating monkeys with African Americans. That's a mis-characterization of the complaints. But that's been covered exhaustively in other threads.