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]

Well, it's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Parlor & Parliament

 

[Micah Sweet]

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?

Yes, then what? Not every adventure is won through diplomacy and exploration. Even Star Trek didn't go that far, and D&D is a bad rules system for that anyway?

 

[SakanaSensei]

Well, it's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Parlor & Parliament

You heard it here first, folks, if your game doesn't revolve around prisons and lizards that break physics, it ain't DnD.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

You heard it here first, folks, if your game doesn't revolve around prisons and lizards that break physics, it ain't DnD.

Indeed. Players are entitled to demand from their DM the ability to visit prisons once every other adventure. It's in the One D&D Gamemastering section.

[I meant the game's name evoked a somewhat barbaric time when people had dungeons and thought dragons were real, so maybe the focus was more on fighting than negociation, without making them impossible to have them of course]. And to be honest, my group doesn't like fights that much, we spend whole session without rolling a die, and we'd probably be better off with another system... but everyone knows D&D, so...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Indeed. Players are entitled to demand from their DM the ability to visit prisons once every other adventure. It's in the One D&D Gamemastering section.

Groups should do whatever works for its members.

My high schooler, like lots of high schoolers, wants to fight something, so I try to throw in at least a small fight for him early each session. He's fine if this is a solo fight -- he's playing a swashbuckler, so it's actually better for him that way.

My dad could talk the ears off a statue, so I need to give him some NPC to try and razzle dazzle.

My other players have their own needs and desires and I try to make sure everyone gets a chance to do the thing they like.

This doesn't feel like a constraint to me so much as making sure everyone's having fun.

 

[Faolyn]

Yes, then what? Not every adventure is won through diplomacy and exploration. Even Star Trek didn't go that far, and D&D is a bad rules system for that anyway?

No, seriously, I'm asking you. You say "not every adventure is won through diplomacy and exploration," but you're ignoring non-sapient foes there, and people who are sapient but who have done very bad things--like evil cultists and bandits. And you're also ignoring winning adventures through cleverness and trickery--and a whole lot of Star Trek episodes used that. A lot more than were ever based around just violence.

Let's face it--even the Borg aren't "always evil kill on sight" in Star Trek.

 

[MGibster]

(I thought English is a relatively easy language to learn? The spelling can be tricky, yes, but the grammar is pretty straight forward. And even if a nonproficient speaker mangles a sentence, it's still usually easy to figure out the intended meaning.)

As a native English speaker, Spanish makes a lot more sense to me.

Well, it's called Dungeons & Dragons, not Parlor & Parliament

I've got a +2 Robert's Rules of Order, and I'm using it to postpone indefinitely the dragon's motion to change the venue to a facility that will not "constrain" the movements of a huge sized creature on the grounds that he picked his lair he can live with it.

 

[Yaarel]

From Perkins blog, this surprised me:

"Future reprints will omit both the illustration and the offensive text, neither of which had been reviewed by cultural experts."

I was under the assumption that reviewers doublechecked recent products.

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

I've got a +2 Robert's Rules of Order, and I'm using it to postpone indefinitely the dragon's motion to change the venue to a facility that will not "constrain" the movements of a huge sized creature on the grounds that he picked his lair he can live with it.

Ever been to a WSFS business meeting? That's where I found out that parliamentary procedure is PvP.

 

[Argyle King]

No, seriously, I'm asking you. You say "not every adventure is won through diplomacy and exploration," but you're ignoring non-sapient foes there, and people who are sapient but who have done very bad things--like evil cultists and bandits. And you're also ignoring winning adventures through cleverness and trickery--and a whole lot of Star Trek episodes used that. A lot more than were ever based around just violence.

Let's face it--even the Borg aren't "always evil kill on sight" in Star Trek.

That's a good point.

But, going the other way, even D&D Demons and Devils have some (albeit small, but some) chance of being redeemed.

So, from your perspective, when is violent action acceptable?