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

 

[MGibster]

Indeed. Removing racism from the stories, so that it is absent from newer editions, is bad, however. Much better to include a foreword explaining the racists underpinning of some of H.P. Lovecraft's theme, contextualizing to separate it from the "average racism and eugenism of 20's America" from what where his own ideas. It is especially useful if some of the racists underpinning are becoming more diffcult to identify to modern readers.

Does anyone actually do this? Every version of Dr. Herbert West I've read includes the painfully racist description of the black boxer as well as the unpleasant name of the black cat. I've never seen a Bowlderized version of a Lovecraft story, but I don't doubt that they exist.

It was putting on a white sheet and committing acts of mass murder and domestic terrorism.

This was the custom of an organization that was very much in the mainstream with millions of members. Though it should be pointed out that even if they were a mainstream organization, they had plenty of critics. I've often wondered why people point to Lovecraft as being particularly racist even for the era, but he really wasn't. It's just that many white Americans held virulently racist ideas at the time.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And while I have heard about what you describe as "Mulato Tragedy" I was not aware of that term for it. Though it makes perfect sense once so named.

The Shadow Over Innsmouth is a peculiarly New England story, and what his xenophobic ire/fear is focused on is given away by the repeated references to the strange religious rituals and a weird religious cult in a sea-side town in Massachusetts.

He wasn't a big fan of Catholics.....

 

[MGibster]

I think a lot of Lovecraft get a bye because I suspect that many encounter the mythos via secondary sources, via games and other derivative works rather than from the pen of the man himself. If it was dependent on his writing it would have faded more because I do not believe that his writings were all that good.

I think a lot of modern readers might interpret his work a bit differently. Reading The Shadow Over Innsmouth without knowing anything about Lovecraft, I might interpret it as a story about madness that runs in families and the fear of being unable to escape it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

now this is again a SUPER intreseting idea (and one as a comic fan I hold dear to my heart)
When someone creates something, but then someone else takes the idea and makes it work better and it become beloved, who really should get that credit?

Stan Lee?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think a lot of modern readers might interpret his work a bit differently. Reading The Shadow Over Innsmouth without knowing anything about Lovecraft, I might interpret it as a story about madness that runs in families and the fear of being unable to escape it.

That is how I read it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because people start using it in a negative manner because their go-to is no longer socially acceptable.

I know this because believe me, I grew up in the time it was being done with 'gay' because the other f-word wasn't allowed.

yup... and that is the pattern. We find a new word, that word is excepted, people use it as an insult long enough people only take it that way...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Stan Lee?

right now there is a major debate about Deadpool but yeah Stan Lee is a great example... he created the X men but did he make them what people think of as X men today?

 

[Incenjucar]

Sure, but improvement is rarely objective.

Within the ethical bounds WotC would prefer to be identified with, it can be quite objective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

right now there is a major debate about Deadpool but yeah Stan Lee is a great example... he created the X men but did he make them what people think of as X men today?

Everybody respects Chris Claremont, but no one says he created the X-Men. Because he didn't. Credit should go to those who did a thing, specifically. It's not a zero sum game who gets credit for the X-Men, or anything else worked on by more than one person.

 

[Aldarc]

This was the custom of an organization that was very much in the mainstream with millions of members. Though it should be pointed out that even if they were a mainstream organization, they had plenty of critics. I've often wondered why people point to Lovecraft as being particularly racist even for the era, but he really wasn't. It's just that many white Americans held virulently racist ideas at the time.

Sure, and it would be equally bad if we amplified the inextricable white supremacist ideology in their written works too.