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

 

[ReshiIRE]

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?

Not the one asked, but I would say the most common scenarios would be:

a) when an honest attempt at negotiations have failed
b) when a violent and awful act is being committed right in front of you
c) when dishonesty is involved and a deal is reneged that could lead to awful things happening
d) when the sapient in question is irredeemable to some degree

Even then, it doesn't have to be to the death - capturing enemies is possible depending on resources.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

Yeah, Robert's Rules of Order is a cheat code for government meetings. The folks who know it wipe the floor with those who don't.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

No matter what else, what's really cool here is that by the sound of it you're DMing both your Dad and your son. That's bloody amazing!

 

[Faolyn]

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?

Depends entirely on the situation. "Clear and present danger," so to speak. The likelihood of redemption. A currently-violent/dangerous fiend can be redeemed, but the chances are so crushingly slim that, barring the PCs having extraordinary powers at their disposal, it's usually not worth it to try. After all, it's entirely logical to say that fiends can't be redeemed through simply being kind to them and you need to use heavy-duty magic to even give it a shot.

Ditto, an orc raider. Can you capture them safely? Do you have the means to hold the orc while you try to show it a better way? Do you have a reason why it might believe you? Is the orc themself willing to put down their arms when you believe them? And most importantly, if you focus on this orc raider, will the rest of their band then destroy the town?

That being said, I did once run a game (GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, so not quite D&D but close enough) where the PCs decided to start a workshop in order to give goblins and kobolds and the like a job other than banditry. And in a much more recent game, I had a spectator attack the party (as it was being a guard), gave it the ability to summon another spectator (because the spectator would be too-low a CR otherwise), and when the party killed the first spectator, the summoned one asked "Uh, why are we fighting here?" because he had better things to do than get into combat with the PCs and didn't care if the PCs took all the stuff that the first one was guarding. Combat was dragging a bit at this point and I gave the PCs an opening for negotiations--and they took it. The spectator left peacefully.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

No matter what else, what's really cool here is that by the sound of it you're DMing both your Dad and your son. That's bloody amazing!

I have a 69-year age span for my players, including my youngest (both kids play), which makes things interesting, as the kids bring a mathematical ruthlessness to the game borne of years of CRPG play, while the elders bring life experience and a deep knowledge from decades of reading fantasy, mythology and history.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well sure. But the mechanics of D&D (any edition) are centered around violence (or at least armed combat), and the history of D&D adventures focuses on going into places and killing the inhabitants. Limiting that to non-sapient animals, mindless undead (the intelligent ones can be talked to) and demons is a strong limit. Even cultists could potentially be reasoned with.

Frankly, D&D is the wrong game, mechanically and historically, for always reaching for the peaceful answer. Even if some play it that way.

 

[Incenjucar]

Nothing about D&D prevents players from seeking peaceful solutions. It's a strictly artificial limitation. It doesn't make it the default option, but even the original game would reward you for just getting away with loot instead of slaughtering the countryside.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Nothing about D&D prevents players from seeking peaceful solutions. It's a strictly artificial limitation. It doesn't make it the default option, but even the original game would reward you for just getting away with loot instead of slaughtering the countryside.

I am all about combat. Love it love it love it. My group is way into it. Just a preference.

That said—-if you played 1e as a hack fest without DM stacking the deck you would be in trouble much if the time.

Low hit points, taking forever to heal if you went to negatives, rarity of resurrection…caution was advisable and that sweet xp was from treasure…

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Frankly, D&D is the wrong game, mechanically and historically, for

I mean D&D is a little bit of everything bolted on to a war game, so I don't know if it's true of anything.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing about D&D prevents players from seeking peaceful solutions. It's a strictly artificial limitation. It doesn't make it the default option, but even the original game would reward you for just getting away with loot instead of slaughtering the countryside.

Sure. But going into people's houses and taking their stuff is still immoral, even if going in and killing them is worse.