D&D 5E D&D's Inclusivity Language Alterations In Core Rules

In recent months, WotC has altered some of the text found in the original 5th Edition core rulebooks to accommodate D&D's ongoing move towards inclusivity. Many of these changes are reflected on D&D Beyond already--mainly small terminology alterations in descriptive text, rather than rules changes.

Teos Abadia (also known as Alphastream) has compiled a list of these changes. I've posted a very abbreviated, paraphrased version below, but please do check out his site for the full list and context.

• Savage foes changed to brutal, merciless, or ruthless.
• Barbarian hordes changed to invading hordes.
• References to civilized people and places removed.
• Madness or insanity removed or changed to other words like chaos.
• Usage of orcs as evil foes changed to other words like raiders.
• Terms like dim-witted and other synonyms of low intelligence raced with words like incurious.
• Language alterations surrounding gender.
• Fat removed or changed to big.
• Use of terms referring to slavery reduced or altered.
• Use of dark when referring to evil changed to words like vile or dangerous.

This is by no means the full list, and much more context can be found on Alphastream's blog post.

 

[Charlaquin]

No it's not, there are different license agreements for both of those entities.

Yes, but those licenses are for products that aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand.

And say there is a book tie in to a game module, or something wotc would want more control over.

Like a novel?

How about a 3rd party campaign setting like the critical role Tal'Dorei Reborn setting, that for sure has a negotiated agreement that is not CC to get it on to DDB, no?

3rd party campaign settings can absolutely be published under Creative Commons. The DDB marketplace is a completely different agreement, not related to licensing.

 

[theCourier]

That's my dream. My glorious, unattainable (unless I do it myself, which is fine) dream.

Couldn't you just find a fan work that does this, or do this yourself? Clearly, WotC isn't interested in bringing old settings back unless they can market them to more audiences than before. Aren't you the one always telling other people they shouldn't rely on WotC for their D&D content?

 

[Scribe]

Couldn't you just find a fan work that does this, or do this yourself? Clearly, WotC isn't interested in bringing old settings back unless they can market them to more audiences than before. Aren't you the one always telling other people they shouldn't rely on WotC for their D&D content?

It needs to be in DMGuild or whatever first, otherwise its copyright infringement.

 

[AstroCat]

Yes, but those licenses are for products that aren’t relevant to the discussion at hand.

Like a novel?

3rd party campaign settings can absolutely be published under Creative Commons. The DDB marketplace is a completely different agreement, not related to licensing.

I am saying simply there are situations where wotc would maintain control of the language used in 3rd party licensed content beyond CC. So yes, that to me is relevant to the discussion of language and "wotc d&d". You could have an official d&d licensed product and wotc could prevent you from using any of of the officially banned words, 100%.

 

[Velderan]

Do people actually think in the year 2023 that WotC could just license out something that could be viewed as problematic and wash their hands of any fallout from the content being released? Is this actually a position being taken in this thread?

 

[AstroCat]

Do people actually think in the year 2023 that WotC could just license out something that could be viewed as problematic and wash their hands of any fallout from the content being released? Is this actually a position being taken in this thread?

Agree, never gonna happen. They have positioned themselves in a way that they can not remove themselves from. Anything even remotely "risky" in the slightest way is a no go for them. Taking creative chances of any kind is off the table for wotc, for the very long foreseeable future.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Agree, never gonna happen. They have positioned themselves in a way that they can not remove themselves from. Anything even remotely "risky" in the slightest way is a no go for them. Taking creative chances of any kind is off the table for wotc, for the very long foreseeable future.

They just published a book based on the Deck of Many Things filled with creative, interesting ideas. I would call that a creative chance.

 

[bedir than]

You are I believe allowed to rewrite that, wouldn't Level Up be confirmation of that?

There are ways to do so, but Level Up did it under the OGL originally, not the CC BY.

Intermixing licenses or quoted with original work can be difficult, and unlike Morrus, my ability to afford lawyers is different.

If inclusion is the default than it should be part of the broadest license in gaming

 

[Parmandur]

I had never heard of Coyote and Crow, but yeah, pretty much. Reciprocity is what makes the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. From a casual google, it looks like Coyote and Crow was created to elevate the voices of First Nations creators, so presumably it was created by people with the relevant cultural context to represent the cultural elements it uses in ways that are culturally appropriate.

Yeah, the creators went throufh a lot of work to create an alternate universe First Nation culture, including a ConLang, and part of the requested groundrules is for non-Native players and referrers to stick to the made up culture but for Native players to bring in elements of thwir own culture, which has caused some controversy. But it makes sense.to me, and I think this reciprocity angle makes sense of why it seemed a reasonable request to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

Do people actually think in the year 2023 that WotC could just license out something that could be viewed as problematic and wash their hands of any fallout from the content being released? Is this actually a position being taken in this thread?

They can’t really stop people from publishing whatever they want under Creative Commons. Preventing licensees from publishing D&D content they consider problematic was literally their expressed reason for trying to pull the whole OGL 2.0 fiasco, and when that blew up in their faces, they explicitly said that with the rules now licensed under CC they would have to rely on the community to help keep D&D inclusive.

Obviously non-RPG content is a different story, and involves different licenses. But that’s not what the article we’re discussing is about.