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

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

And if it's any consolation, in twenty, thirty years their kids will be complaining about their old fashioned values. That's just how it goes. It's healthy. So I respect what Wizards is doing. They are trying to listen and learn.

While I agree with your diagnosis, and effectively it's impossible to fight against the generational sea, I wouldn't say it's necessarily healthy. I mean, there were times with MORE gender equality and it was replaced by a period where the social consensus was LESS gender equality. At some point in history, slavery was banned in some countries and it was reinstated to serve economic interests... and the consensus became that it was good thing. There where times with social mobility giving way to times where the consensus was "do like your father before you, older = better". Democratic governments gave ways to authoritarian ones (yet they were fairly popular an "people supported"). At a time where society questions rights we took for granted, there is no telling that in 30 years, the social consensus won't be different in worse way. So I am pretty sure that social consensus is a moving thing, but I am not convinced it is always "cruising toward the best". Especially with so many diverse societies in the world having different opinions on what is good.

 

[Minigiant]

I disagree. I do think that a lot of the people that were pushing back against black hobbits were motivated by racism, whether they know it or not. Certainly not all of the people claiming to be "Tolkien purists" are lying or inherently acting in bad faith, but I think that the last few years have shown that the vast majority of people that complain about these kinds of minor changes or additions of inclusivity are actually bigots.

Look at all of the people that review bomb or harass the casts of diverse shows/movies before they even come out (Shang-Chi, Captain Marvel, that Ghostbusters movie). Almost every time any diverse piece of media (animation, live action TV, movies, TTRPG books, video games) comes out, people accuse it of being "woke" and attack it. And I certainly saw that happening with the Rings of Power.

There is also another thing. Target Demographic.

A lot of people aren't necessarily overtly racist but not used to not being the main target demo. They are used to the products and services they consume and use being geared to them and them alone.

But when a company says "Hey, lets make money off someone else too", they freak because everything is no longer geared to them.

Look at Games Workshop. Warhammer Fantasy and 40k were both products geared to UK white males who have a ton of money to waste. But eventually GW started running out of rich and upper middle class Brittish boys. So they turned to other countries, genders, ethnicities, ages, and fandoms. And GW had to change and emphasize parts of their games. and some longtime bigoted fans lost their minds because it wasn't all about them anymore.

But like I posted once online "You want prices to go up 500% or my 20+ cousins to play."

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

When I was a kid, Aunt Jemima's image was very much of the stereotypical mammy, it wasn't until the late 80s or early 90s that they updated her image. And that's what I'm getting at, when I was a kid, pouring maple "flavored" syrup over my pancakes, I was completely unaware of the cultural context that gave birth to that image. Images from the past often don't have the same meanings to a modern audience because we're don't have the life experience that brought us those stereotypes. And there are other examples. Most of us don't see the Wicked Witch of the West and connect the traditional image of a witch to anti-Semitism or clowns to country bumpkins.

When Aunt Jemima went the way of the dodo bird, there were some people who were upset. For most of them, I suspect they simply thought of Aunt Jemima like I had, as a sweet, sweet woman who just wanted to fill their bellies with the fluffiest pancakes. Maybe they're upset because a piece of their childhood is tainted? And of course we can't ignore the anti-woke brigade who will complain about such things. (I have good memories of Aunt Jemima, but even if I didn't know her history, I'll be Goddamned before I put any energy into being upset at the loss of a corporate mascot.)

I don't know who Aunt Jemmima is, but there is an American brand called "Uncle Ben's" that produces rice. The iconic Black person on the package was perceived as a sign of American progressism to feature a Black person who wanted to provide us the best rice of the world (as apparently the US are producing rice, but why not) that doesn't stick when overcooked, instead of using a White person as the company's logo. Removing it recently felt very backward and less inclusive, with people commenting "hey, that's very racist to remove the image of an affluent Black person that everyone knows and that has absolutely no offensive reference". (Because of course nobody associated "wearing a jacket like any exec" with "being a manservant"... in the ads he was just appearing to be owning a large mansion like the top 1% with many cars parked in front). Especially since they gave him an American accent, reinforcing the association (American = rich).

Of course, the intent was to remove the idea that he was just the butler of an unseen and probably white owner, but as they didn't explicitely mentionned he was a butler, there was no way to asssociate that... outside of a culture where "well-dressed Black person" = "imagery of a servant", that apparently motivated his removal percieved as offensive, especially coupled with the name, because there was some problem with being called Ben. Where the most famous Bens are Ben Affleck and Ben Kenobi, and generally stands as the diminutive form of Benjamin, which is more prevalent in affluent families, the name was absolutely not seen as something problematic and the move to remove the image of a successful Black business owner in rice industry was seen as really puzzling. A move that made sense within a certain cultural framework didn't translate at all in another.

 

[Zardnaar]

People busy shouting at each other but there's another problem.

Diversity is becoming short hand for badly written cardboard cutout characters. Writers who like pushing things usually mess it up.

So you have things like Sense 8, Shadow and Bone, Black Panther which are diverse and are really good stories etc. The race of the characters is essentially irrelevant they're telling a good story


Them you have all the crap and diverse may as well mean hot garbage. Movies that flop or shows that last one season if that. Stuff like that is probably doing more damage than it's helping.

South Park mocked it but they mock everybody I suppose.

Badly written is badly written.

The drek to good ratio isn't very favourable though. It's not because diverse casts or whatever are a problem more really crappy writing that appeals to no one or some combination of not knowing who your target audience is and making something to appeal to everyone that appeals to no one.

So for every Shadow and Bone there's a Batwoman or you get mixed stuff like Star Trek Discovery with one good season, one meh season and one bad season. Rings of Power another one 2-3 good episodes 2 -3 ok episodes and 2-3 mein gott that's terrible.

Or they really butcher something badly despite having good actors. Rise of Skywalker cough cough. They did most of them dirty on that one.

Hell you can find better stuff made in the 90's (Fresh Prince, Blade, In Living Colour) than alot of new stuff now.

 

[Remathilis]

People busy shouting at each other but there's another problem.

Diversity is becoming short hand for badly written cardboard cutout characters. Writers who like pushing things usually mess it up.

So you have things like Sense 8, Shadow and Bone, Black Panther which are diverse and are really good stories etc. The race of the characters is essentially irrelevant they're telling a good story


Them you have all the crap and diverse may as well mean hot garbage. Movies that flop or shows that last one season if that. Stuff like that is probably doing more damage than it's helping.

South Park mocked it but they mock everybody I suppose.

Badly written is badly written.

The drek to good ratio isn't very favourable though. It's not because diverse casts or whatever are a problem more really crappy writing that appeals to no one or some combination of not knowing who your target audience is and making something to appeal to everyone that appeals to no one.

So for every Shadow and Bone there's a Batwoman or you get mixed stuff like Star Trek Discovery with one good season, one meh season and one bad season. Rings of Power another one 2-3 good episodes 2 -3 ok episodes and 2-3 mein gott that's terrible.

Or they really butcher something badly despite having good actors. Rise of Skywalker cough cough. They did most of them dirty on that one.

Hell you can find better stuff made in the 90's (Fresh Prince, Blade, In Living Colour) than alot of new stuff now.

I think this is a good point as we tend to lump criticism together.

I LOATHE The Sequel Trilogy (and The Last Jedi in particular) for a lot of reasons. The race and gender of the characters are not one of them. I didn't mind Rey being the heir to the Force or a black man being a stormtrooper. However, a loud amount of the criticism came from people who were screaming about "Woke Disney" so anyone who didn't like the movie often got lumped in with the racists and misogynists. It's the Ghostbusters 2016 effect: it wasn't a particularly good movie but the all female leads weren't the problem, despite everyone who didn't fawn over it being called a caveman.

But that's been the problem: the loudest voices shouting hate become the spokespeople for the fandom. I've seen it time and time again. Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who, the frickin X-Men! I have no problems with diversity in characters and in actors (usually, I thought how Fan4astic Four did it was dumb, mostly because it took a literal brother and sister and changed their dynamic). The fight is to get those voices, which are a minority in the fandom, to stop being the focus of the fandom. No I don't know how that happens, except to slowly isolate the hatred and to remember that not every hot take is in bad faith. Sometimes, a bad movie is a bad movie.

 

[Fifth Element]

For instance, the Harfoots are a wandering people. Why not drop a line about how they wander all over the world and when the various troops meet up it is common for people to leave the old troop and join the new one? There you go! Now there is a logical reason for there to have Harfoots of all different races and ethnicities.

Why would they need to present a reason for their fantasy world to reflect something that is extremely common in the real world? In the real world, people have different skin colours and - here's the thing - they often live together in communities with people of other skin colours.

The issue here is your assumed default. You think the default is that everyone should be the same colour. Otherwise an explanation is needed. Change your assumed default and there's no issue.

There's also the question of why skin colour matters so much to you in context. That's a different discussion though.

But there is no explanation at all. The only explanation is that they wanted to have a diverse cast so people wouldn't get mad and that is it. So when I sit down to watch the show and I see all of these different races represented I don't have an in-world explanation, I just have the thought that the studio needed to hit a certain quota so they won't get labeled as racist.

Your thought results directly from your assumed default. Your assumed default is therefore the issue, not the casting decisions. Moreover, this is a false dichotomy. You're imagining there is only one other possible reason - to "not be labeled racist." That's an extremely loaded way of saying that, revealing a particular bias that you have. How about "we wanted the cast to reflect the viewership, because we'd like to represent as many of them as possible?"

Final thought. Please try to spend a little more time understanding the people on the other side of the argument and listen to what they are actually saying instead of just hurling insults and you will find you can make new allies instead of creating new enemies.

Frankly, the number of people who "just hurl insults" is very small. Most of us spend a good deal of time explaining WHY something is bigoted. Don't let the fact that the word 'bigoted' is used get in the way of you actually reading the arguments as to why it's being used.

We've spent a great deal of time trying to understand the people on the "other side." We've heard what they have to say. We understand it. We just think it's seriously flawed thinking and can tell you why.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But there is no explanation at all. The only explanation is that they wanted to have a diverse cast so people wouldn't get mad and that is it.

You’ll need to cite evidence of that. Interviews? Hacked emails?

It’s equally (more?) probable they are intelligent enough to realize the portrayal of “good guys” as exclusively or predominantly white causes real damage, they saw an opportunity to contribute to change, and they stepped up. Even though they that the typical cast of losers would kick and scream about it.

EDIT: I have no doubt that if Tolkien were alive today he would say that of course he was imagining all his Hobbits having Caucasian features, but also that he now understands things he didn’t understand in 1940, and that he fully supports those casting decisions.

 

[Velderan]

Your thought results directly from your assumed default. Your assumed default is therefore the issue, not the casting decisions. Moreover, this is a false dichotomy. You're imagining there is only one other possible reason - to "not be labeled racist." That's an extremely loaded way of saying that, revealing a particular bias that you have. How about "we wanted the cast to reflect the viewership, because we'd like to represent as many of them as possible?"

I think the issue for a lot of diehard fans is their obsession with continuity and they likely see the Amazon show as being the same thing as Peter Jackson's films which (that I can think of) did not feature any characters that didn't appear white. I don't particularly get why that's such a huge issue if the characters are at least presented with the same personality, but some people just obsess over minor continuity details more than others.

I had my issues with the 2003 Daredevil movie and Michael Clarke Duncan playing Kingpin wasn't one of them. I'm also not a huge Daredevil fan to begin with, so that level of attention to detail to the source material just doesn't matter to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You’ll need to cite evidence of that. Interviews? Hacked emails?

It’s equally (more?) probable they are intelligent enough to realize the portrayal of “good guys” as exclusively or predominantly white causes real damage, they saw an opportunity to contribute to change, and they stepped up. Even though they that the typical cast of losers would kick and scream about it.

EDIT: I have no doubt that if Tolkien were alive today he would say that of course he was imagining all his Hobbits having Caucasian features, but also that he now understands things he didn’t understand in 1940, and that he fully supports those casting decisions.

If that were the only issue, I think you're right. Based on his own writing about adaptation, however, and some odd narrative choices in the show, I suspect he would not have cared for it anyway.

 

[Umbran]

The danger here is failing to understand people you disagree with and just labeling them bigots. You don't help them in anyway, you just prevent them from explaining themselves. Shouting people down and "canceling" them does not change their minds. It just pushes them away and they will be embraced by more extreme parts of the populus who will try to turn them into actual bigots.

So, I get the point, but the point has some problems.

I can get how we should listen to some people who don't want to be called bigots. That's a fair point. But that one goes both ways - the people who don't want to be called bigots need to listen to why their position looks and sounds like bigotry or racism.

Continuing to hold strong to what are in the end literary concerns, in the face of real social problems... leads to a real question about priorities, which makes this look more like racism or bigotry, rather than less.