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]

"Ignorant" is the operative word here. Like I said, from their own perspective, they see absolutely nothing wrong with it. After all, it is literally true. But, that's the sticky part isn't it. It's not racist from their perspective, but, their perspective is 100% based in their own existence as the majority. Because Japan perceives itself as homogeneous, their perspective is the only one that matters to them.

Which is the heart of bigotry and racism. Only accepting a specific, singular perspective and never questioning it. It's not malicious, I truly believe that. As was mentioned up thread, one cannot be taken to task for not knowing something. But, it's the unquestioning ignorance that leads to so many bad things. Ignorance may be blissful, but it's ultimately a very, very bad thing.

And it gets to be a worse thing when people actively try to justify that ignorance.

But how do you reconcile that with calling people "African Americans" "Asian Americans" (and so on) and mentionning their purported ethnicity along with their nationality? In France it would be considered racist and, unless the intent was harmless (like an honest misunderstanding), it would even be prosecuted (expression like that are only used by the far right whenever there is some crime reported, asking "was he French or a French who comes/descent from X or Y?" to cast suspicion on the origin of the perpetrator and it is causing grief to "second generation immigration persons (ie, persons who weren't immigrant themselves but their sons and daughters)" who feel totally integrated yet are rejected by racists to be confronted with their ancestors origin). Now that you know that, in my cultural framework, it is rather offensive to divide citizens of a country on a racial axis, will you stop using "African Americans"? Certainly not (and I am far for asking that from anyone) since it's totally accepted in your cultural perspective. How is Japan different?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Faeries? Monsters that go "poof" and get back to their own dimension when killed (or reduced at X HP)? Honestly there is no intersection between "no one would reasonably try to bargain with" and "self-aware". As soon as something understands its own mortality, it will be open to bargain (at gunpoint, maybe).

Then we are calling out that an adventure where sapient beings are expected to be met with lethal force is dead as a concept.

 

[SakanaSensei]

But how do you reconcile that with calling people "African Americans" "Asian Americans" (and so on) and mentionning their purported ethnicity along with their nationality? In France it would be considered racist and, unless the intent was harmless (like an honest misunderstanding), it would even be prosecuted (expression like that are only used by the far right whenever there is some crime reported, asking "was he French or a French who comes/descent from X or Y?" to cast suspicion on the origin of the perpetrator). Now that you know that, in my cultural framework, it is rather offensive to divide citizens of a country on a racial axis, will you stop using "African Americans"? Certainly not (and I am far for asking that from anyone) since it's totally accepted in your cultural perspective. How is Japan different?

To push on this a little bit, after conversations with colleagues when I was still teaching in the States, I excised "X Americans" as a part of my general speech, because people affected by those labels did indeed feel ostracized by it.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Then we are calling out that an adventure where sapient beings are expected to be met with lethal force is dead as a concept.

Not necessarily. Sometimes lethal force is necessary and accepted. If you're chasing a criminal, and he shoots at you, it's expected that you can shoot back. It's the idea that you don't attempt to reason with them (or offered to surrender) and shoot on sight that is probably dead.

 

[Hussar]

A major problem is the tendency for people, when told that something is hurtful, to look deep inside themselves... and consider how they and they alone feel about that. And from they, formulate their reaction, including justifying that thing and its hurtful nature if it's something they have an attachment (no matter how distant) to.

"A species in a revived obscure D&D setting had to be changed because of racist tropes?

Well I like D&D and I know I'm a good and racism is bad, and therefor nothing I like or connected to something I like can be racist, so there must be some sort of foul play. Who is to blame for this foul play? That is the important objective here. No need to ask why it as considered racist, because like I said, I'm not racist and I wish people would stop calling me racist for saying something tangently related to a hobby of mine racist."

Heh, change "racist" to "good" and you see it so clearly whenever WotC changes any sort of mechanic/lore/anything in the game. "I like this. I like good things. Therefore, this is good and this change must be bad" is the battle cry of every edition warrior ever.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Faeries? Monsters that go "poof" and get back to their own dimension when killed (or reduced at X HP)? Honestly there is no intersection between "no one would reasonably try to bargain with" and "self-aware". As soon as something understands its own mortality, it will be open to bargain (at gunpoint, maybe).

At the moment, I'm looking at genocidal nihilists in the Lovecraftian vein.

I mean, sure, someone could talk to the cultist about their childhood trauma and why they want to see the world drown in blood ... but they probably won't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

At the moment, I'm looking at genocidal nihilists in the Lovecraftian vein.

I mean, sure, someone could talk to the cultist about their childhood trauma and why they want to see the world drown in blood ... but they probably won't.

Yeah, I guess there's always cultists...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Yeah, I guess there's always cultists...

Honestly, most of my games are against intelligent foes and negotiation and discussion is a regular feature of my at-home games.

But when producing something for a mass audience, the easiest way to go is "so, here is a dungeon. There is a genocidal cult in there about to unlock the ability to do bad stuff. You'd better hurry."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, most of my games are against intelligent foes and negotiation and discussion is a regular feature of my at-home games.

But when producing something for a mass audience, the easiest way to go is "so, here is a dungeon. There is a genocidal cult in there about to unlock the ability to do bad stuff. You'd better hurry."

WotC's take is a little "lowest common denominator" for me, but that's their right, and clearly people will buy it.

 

[Faolyn]

Then we are calling out that an adventure where sapient beings are expected to be met with lethal force is dead as a concept.

No--but there should be a reason why those sapient beings are supposed to die, and a reason why peace can't be had without killing them.

But let's go to a hypothetical extreme and assume that yes, adventures where lethal combat against sapient, free-willed beings is "dead as a concept." OK... then what?