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

 

[Micah Sweet]

oh yeah that's a big one...

part of it is the limit on, while everything.

if you knew 100 movies would be made in 2025, and 50 were going to be small budget ones you most likely wont see even if you want to until it is streaming, and of the 50 left normally 24 of them would be the style YOU PERSONALLY like... but this year they decised that those 24 are 'too ______' so instead they will take half of them and make other types of movies... so now that list of 100 movies that you used to pick between 24 and go to the theaters twice a month are not limited to 12... cutting YOUR movie selection in half. Is it more fair, maybe, but it does feel like "why aren't they making movies I like"

Brining this around to D&D (finally) you can look at it with what books get put out. If we get 4 rules supplements and 6 adventures and 2 campaign settings in 2025 that is 1 book a month (I think that is actually more then what WotC averages but someone can call me on it if I am wrong) for 1D&D... if all 4 rules supplements are for people who like combat and gamiest mechanics then the people who like narrative will feel slighted and so too will people who want social primary will as well... BUT if those 4 get split 2 for combat 1 for exploration 1 for social and the two combat ones 1 is gameist and combat as war and one is narrative and combat as sport, that seems like a fair split... but that guy that got 4 rule supliments the year before that were all main combat with gameist and combat as war style can feel "hey why are they pulling away from my style"

Because they are in that case. It may be fair, and the right thing to do for including different styles, but that's what they're doing. If you liked the way things were before, it is a net negative for you. That's tough to take.

 

[MGibster]

When you're the majority, everything around you is FOR you. The food at the supermarket. The restaurants. The newspapers. The television shows. The movies. EVERYTHING is for you. Because you're the majority and capitalism being what it is, means that it makes the most economic sense to gear everything to you. And it spills over into so many things. Like the sort of casual racism that people engage in all the time, without even realizing it.

I'm fairly certain the same is true of every society no matter their economic system. They're designed for the majority. We can certainly make sure we treat people respectfully leave a seat for them at the table so they can participate, but the majority will always be the ones primarily catered to.

Which is why I don't ever understand why people are against making changes that cost them nothing. Taking out the minstrelsy image from Spelljammer costs no one a single thing. It costs nothing. And it makes some people happy. Why would anyone oppose that?

I'm not sure a significant number of people are actually upset that WotC has removed those images. D&D 5th edition has sold like hotcakes, I don't believe the people who are upset about this are anything we need to be overly concerned about.

 

[Umbran]

Although I recognize the unfairness and injustice, I'm not quite (yet?) willing to take drastic steps to address inequity, such as not giving my own kids the kinds of advantages I'm able to provide them, even though the end result is to perpetuate that inequity.

that is a big way the problem keeps up... but I can't imagine the solution.

If you actually want to address large-scale, systemic societal issues, depending on individual private citizens to address it with their private actions is... not a solid solution

Equity will not be reached by, say, Bill here spending his kid's college fund instead on scholarship programs for minorities. While it'd be great if, once he's addressed his kid's needs, he had resources leftover and spent that on scholarships for others, he is ethically allowed to deal with his own issues first.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you actually want to address large-scale, systemic societal issues, depending on individual private citizens to address it with their private actions is... not a solid solution

Equity will not be reached by, say, Bill here spending his kid's college fund instead on scholarship programs for minorities. While it'd be great if, once he's addressed his kid's needs, he had resources leftover and spent that on scholarships for others, he is ethically allowed to deal with his own issues first.

Yeah, that is a better way of saying what I meant... and the best answers I have are WAY out of bounds for here, and much more systemic changes.

 

[Gradine]

Not losing one's temper is sometimes a really difficult thing to do.

A critical point here: actually losing one's temper in these types of situations is both (a) justifiable and (b) not a moral failing. This why the "people who aren't 'x' shouldn't speak for 'x'" arguments fall flat. Nobody who has spent their entire life dealing with such indignities should be forced to grin and bear it for the greater good, and allies are often way better positioned to intervene in a positive way because they can appear both impartial and more credible (being also members of the in-group). This is especially true when the minoratized out-group in question is specifically stereotyped and/or severely punished for demonstrating anger.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

But would they have issued a reprint if there were no complaints?

No. And rightly. The whole "somebody complains so cancel" make no real sense and is logical only in a socialmedia marketing perspective. A good 75% of modern fantasy is reactionary especially the quest-portal fantasy from 60 to 90. Tolkien is a very good example of reactionary. But nobody wants his head for this and nobody wanted its cancellation. If it disturb you you can criticize or ignore. Plain and simple. Freedom of speech. Left and right are on a very bad mood of radicalization that is not good for democracy. Hope this will come to an end soon.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

It’s bizarre it took them this long and this many flubs to finally commit to outside sensitivity readers, but I’m glad they finally did. Hope it’s for real and not just marketing.

It's absolutely for marketing. And the demostration of this is that they cancel on demand, posed that the complain is loud enough, without analize critically if the complain is founded on solid logical accusations. Unfortunately the real content is not in discussion. It could be really offensive or strumentally found offensive. It will be cancelled if the number of click is over a certain threshold. This is the phenomenon. Note that I talk about a mechanic and don't express any moral and personal opinion on the hadozee or other specific fact. What I feel scary is this easyness by which cancellation is widely accepted as a mean to achieve a political target. I frankly agree with the target but feel very uneasy with this methods.

 

[Incenjucar]

A critical point here: actually losing one's temper in these types of situations is both (a) justifiable and (b) not a moral failing. This why the "people who aren't 'x' shouldn't speak for 'x'" arguments fall flat. Nobody who has spent their entire life dealing with such indignities should be forced to grin and bear it for the greater good, and allies are often way better positioned to intervene in a positive way because they can appear both impartial and more credible (being also members of the in-group). This is especially true when the minoratized out-group in question is specifically stereotyped and/or severely punished for demonstrating anger.

100%. There's also the "tone" factor that comes from being utterly fatigued. People have a habit of expecting the most proper and calm of tones from the people who are suffering from injustice on a regular basis and often on their last nerve, and use any gaps in decorum as proof that the concerns of those who suffer should be dismissed. Allies are able to throw a wrench into this tone excuse by advocating on behalf of others without the fatigue, and reducing the amount of stress that they have to deal with so they are slightly less exhausted when they do advocate for themselves.

Allies can lighten the load and help deflect the more blatantly absurd tone arguments and give the affected parties enough room to breathe and choose their moment.

 

[Bill Zebub]

heck imagine your house is on fire, you have no way out. You call 911 and they tell you, "Sir we have 1 fire truck, we can save your family or this other family you don't know... we will let YOU decide" now should you have that choice no. Do you know (if you are a good person) you shouldn't have that power YES... BUT, how do you NOT use it to save Your family?

Because your kids are named Eric and Don Jr.?

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Imagine being a one person "company" that puts stuff on DMSGUILD! Even if I have a person or two read things, no chance I can do all this, no chance I realize all the things are blindspots for me. It kind of scares me, actually....

It would be sufficient that you, in good faith, do not want to be offensive. Malice is in the eye of the observer and you cannot prevent every interpretation of your text. This is how it was, at least. Before this strange flip in the duty of proof from the accuser to the accused.