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

 

[Remathilis]

I agree with that, but I also think that a work shouldn't get a pass for bad writing because it also happens to be diverse. I would still like my stories to be good, and just being diverse isn't enough for a good narrative.

Agreed, I mean, nobody watches an Uwe Bowle movie and things the problem is the number of white people.

On the other hand, I think there is a certain expectation that "diverse" movies be representational, and thus criticism of them isn't an attack on the art but on what the art is representing. Catwoman is cited as a reason why female-lead comic movies wouldn't sell but the movie isn't bad because of Halle Berry (ok, it's a little bad because of Halle Berry) it's because the plot, direction, and even special effects were bad.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, I mean, nobody watches an Uwe Bowle movie and things the problem is the number of white people.

On the other hand, I think there is a certain expectation that "diverse" movies be representational, and thus criticism of them isn't an attack on the art but on what the art is representing. Catwoman is cited as a reason why female-lead comic movies wouldn't sell but the movie isn't bad because of Halle Berry (ok, it's a little bad because of Halle Berry) it's because the plot, direction, and even special effects were bad.

True, and that's unfair to those stories. Diversity should not be considered in narrative quality unless the story is in some way about diversity.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Agreed, I mean, nobody watches an Uwe Bowle movie and things the problem is the number of white people.

On the other hand, I think there is a certain expectation that "diverse" movies be representational, and thus criticism of them isn't an attack on the art but on what the art is representing. Catwoman is cited as a reason why female-lead comic movies wouldn't sell but the movie isn't bad because of Halle Berry (ok, it's a little bad because of Halle Berry) it's because the plot, direction, and even special effects were bad.

the problem with most Uwe Bowle movies is that tax loop holes make it so more people make Uwe Bowle movies...

 

[darjr]

Uh, if you claim that “race doesn’t matter” in Black Panther? You lost me.

It just seems stretching to fit your argument, and that band broke.

 

[Gradine]

Look at @Lord Twig's example right above here. He's explained his point quite clearly. And, presumably, he believes what he is saying. He's not acting in bad faith. The thing is, his priorities are not the same as yours. Shouting him down or "cancelling" him or whatever doesn't actually help at this level where it's just a couple of folks shooting the breeze on an Internet forum for ultra-nerds. None of us has any actual power here. So, it's all just talking.

Now, I strongly disagree with @Lord Twig's priorities. Again, fair enough. But, calling him out as a racist for feeling that way is certainly not going to help the conversation to go forward. And, again, I totally get the frustration and anger. Running at the wall over and over again is just so exhausting. But, at the end of the day, it's necessary.

So, the problem isn't that the individual's "priorities" are "bad". The problem is they are appealing to authority when the actual authority is disagreeing with them. This is the problem with every single "there shouldn't be black people in vaguely European settings" is that it is basing itself on historical accuracy despite being completely ahistorical. Actual black and brown people lived in actual medieval Europe. Simple as that. After a certain point, continuing to bang this drum despite it being constantly debunked is going to lead one to believe, justifiably if not always accurately, that there's something more going on, some ulterior motive to continue the lie.

Not to derail the thread at all, but you see this same strategy a lot, from more obviously bad actors, when transphobes appeal to "basic biology" despite and long after literally every biologist has contradicted them.

One can only be corrected for insisting on accuracy inaccurately too many times before it becomes wholly appropriate to wonder why they keep insisting.

 

[Faolyn]

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 were people against Death in The Sandman being played by a Black actress--but I can't recall any negative comments about Despair being played by a blonde white actress, when she wasn't white in the comments. (Both actresses did an amazing job with their characters.) There seem to be people against the next Doctor in Doctor Who being played by a Black actor as well, despite the Doctor (in Tennant's run, I think) once saying that that he could literally look like anything in a new regeneration.

 

[Umbran]

I go with the harry potter series as my go to... they describe Ron and his family and Draco and his (and harry and his) but almost never describe herminie... and almost never anything about others.

Good example. IIRC, Hermione's hair is described, but her skin color is not mentioned in the books.

 

[Faolyn]

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 what non-bigotted reason might someone have? Well I'll tell you my own problem with some of these shows. It is the lack of an explanation.

I thought Hamilton was brilliant. And I thought the Miracle Workers show with Daniel Radcliff was great. Both have diverse casts that do not fit the "historical" inspiration. But they didn't need to, they were not going for an immersive story. Hamilton is a play where you are required to fill in a whole lot with your imagination and Miracle Workers was a comedy.

For immersive stories like Amazon's Wheel of Time and Rings of Power you expect to lose yourself in the atmosphere of the show, not force yourself to ignore inconsistencies because they couldn't be bothered to come up with an explanation.

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.

For the elves, we have only ever seen them in "The West". Why couldn't elves be different colors in different parts of the world? Or, since they were changing so much anyway, they could make something new up altogether. Heck, just add a line about, "Elves are naturally more diverse than humans." It is a magical world, elves are more magical than "mere humans". Why couldn't they just be born different shades? Nothing like this is mentioned in the books and I am sure it is absolutely not what Tolkien intended, but if you are going to change things at least change things in a way that makes sense.

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.

Side note: I have watched the first season of Rings of Power and regardless of the casting the story itself was just ok. Not fantastic, but better than the Wheel of Time in my opinion. Honestly, since they didn't have the rights to the Silmarillion, they shouldn't have tried to just make up their own story for it. Tolkien already has a story and it is better. There were two blue wizards that went to the East that we know nothing about and they could have a cast with no white actors at all and I would have liked it better. Or maybe there could be a real cosmopolitan city over there somewhere where everyone is represented, and since it wouldn't conflict with anything already written it wouldn't be a problem at all.

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.

I haven't watched either WoT or RoP, but... it sounds like it was really easy for you to come up with in-universe justifications for variants on skin color. I'm sure lots of other people came to the same conclusions, if not other, equally plausible ones. Does the show actually need to spell everything out for minor things that are not important to the plot?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: there are people who don't review bomb or harass the casts of these shows and movies, yet nonetheless have complaints. Are all of those people bigots too?

This goes both ways. Does the presence of non-bigots render the presence of bigots a non-issue?

You can dislike something and not be a bigot, but the presence of non-bigots doesn't magically make those bigots go away. And saying "yes, but I'm not a bigot" can often come off like a defense of those bigots, even if it's only accidental. (I am in a lot of Ghostbusters Facebook groups, and let's just say "yikes" to the number of misogynists mixed in.)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Good example. IIRC, Hermione's hair is described, but her skin color is not mentioned in the books.

I had thought it was because it was JK Rowling self-insert character.