WotC Older D&D Books on DMs Guild Now Have A Disclaimer

If you go to any of the older WotC products on the Dungeon Master's Guild, they now have a new disclaimer very similar to that currently found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

We recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website, does not reflect the values of the Dungeon & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.

The wording is very similar to that found at the start of Looney Tunes cartoons.

Edit: Wizards has put out a statement on Twitter (click through to the full thread)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I am under absolutely no illusion that I'm going to change your mind here, but I bet I can shift you at least a little towards my perspective. Let's start with this:

Is there any harm in adding a disclaimer that some content in older D&D materials may contain content which is insensitive?

Yes, possibly. It can easily cause harm for future products as well as place a 'black mark' or 'social scarlet letter' on people who prefer to play, for example, 1e OA. With this sticker, it is basically saying "People in those days were racist and it is reflected in the product. If you like these products, you are racist". ...or at least to varying degrees of that. Now, lets advance the timeline a bit. Say it's now 2024 and we have 6e. Are the original 5e things going to "need a sticker"? I mean, right now there is a debate/bruhaha over the "drow and orcs = evil black people" as well as even the TERM "race" to describe a PC as Human, Elf, Gnome, etc. So, when 6e comes out...does 5e get a sticker on it? What about products that aren't even released now? What if a 5e product comes out that is seen as "offensive" to...oh, Russians? A "baba yaga" type adventure that details the "people of the cold, cruel northern wastelands"...Russia is not all 'tundra' and Russians are not 'cold, dire and stoic'...but to fit the adventure, the human's in that adventure may be set up that way. Does it need a sticker? Are all those who enjoy it, secretly Russian-haters?

That's the problem with labeling a work of fiction as "problematic". There is no line. There is no way to say "THIS is ok, but THAT is not ok"....because it is all going to be in the eye of the beholder/reader. As an example: Rules. How many debates have we had on these forums about, say, the Stealth rules? How many times do we look at what is written and say "Well, I never interpreted it that way...I always saw it as...."? A bajillion times, that's how many (plus or minus a jillion). And this is with ACTUAL RULES. When we are talking about descriptions "Orcs are [insert description]"...well, you can have a hundred different people, each with a different take on what they feel an orc and orc society is/should be.

It also does harm to those who prefer the older systems. Those people (like me) will be even more 'looked down on' or have their ideas/opinions given less weight because "Oh, well, HE plays 1e Oriental Adventures....so you know what kind of person HE probably is...." (extreme example, but I hope you see the point). It, the sticker, is basically saying "Stuff in here is racist, written by people who were racist and played by people who were racist".

Lastly...how many online forums, chat rooms, social media sites, and gamer hang-outs or VTT's might use this as a means to "disallow any discussion or playing of [Legacy AD&D Games] due to WotC's admission that they contain what they might classify as 'hate speech'"? None right now....but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the near future.

After all, as you said, it's not going to change the way you game.

So I ask you this: whose experience will it change? Who do you feel would honestly read this disclaimer and feel better?

I think I outlined my overall thoughts on it all above. And I don't think anyone would honestly read the disclaimer and feel better. That was my point. That this disclaimer is, well, virtually pointless. It isn't going to do any good...but it very well may cause some harm to the people who prefer those older games and want to talk about them online or play them on VTT's or even at conventions. I can see it now, a conventions ToS stating "Open Tables: Play any RPG you want...as long as it is inclusive and doesn't have any disclaimer about it containing 'ethnic, racial or gender prejudices'; those are strictly forbidden!". I mean, after all, if someone is going to be offended by OA being available for sale on a web site...does anyone think such a person wouldn't immediately fly into a tizzy, rush over to the convention organizers and demand that they stop that game from being played in public because now said person is in 'fear for their life due to such a game being played by a group of people'? Without that "sticker", the convention people could logically say "We'll sit in and watch for a bit. If they are having [badwrongfun], we will stop it". But, WITH the sticker? Now their hands are tied; the very makers of the game are 'admitting' that the game has ethnic, racial and/or gender prejudices....so playing it in public at a convention is, effectively, the convention supporting that "style of play".

Bottom line. The sticker isn't going to make anyone feel welcome....but it may very well make a large group of people that enjoy those older games feel unwelcome.

Time will tell, however, so we'll have to see. I hope I am wrong.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ChaosOS]

I think the point is yes, people should feel bad about "preferring to play with 1e OA" these days. It's one thing to defend the piece as a product of its times as a reason to stay available for sale - I'm willing to accept that's a tricky line, especially since it's problematic to strictly tier "how bad does something need to get before we remove it". It's not like OA had outright slurs - the product was intended to enable new modes of play - it "just" perpetuated harmful stereotypes. "We didn't know better" is at least a morally fair defense, even if it's not necessarily correct.

However, if you say "I prefer in the year 2020" to play with a 35+ year old book full of racist stereotypes... Then we have an issue. You can replicate the modes of play found then in other ways - just look at the OSR community - without relying on racist books.

 

[Mercurius]

I think the point is yes, people should feel bad about "preferring to play with 1e OA" these days. It's one thing to defend the piece as a product of its times as a reason to stay available for sale - I'm willing to accept that's a tricky line, especially since it's problematic to strictly tier "how bad does something need to get before we remove it". It's not like OA had outright slurs - the product was intended to enable new modes of play - it "just" perpetuated harmful stereotypes. "We didn't know better" is at least a morally fair defense, even if it's not necessarily correct.

However, if you say "I prefer in the year 2020" to play with a 35+ year old book full of racist stereotypes... Then we have an issue. You can replicate the modes of play found then in other ways - just look at the OSR community - without relying on racist books.

Some people like old movies. Should they feel bad for liking movies that depict outdated ethnic and gender attitudes? Can we not watch Humphrey Bogart without feeling morally obligated to feel bad? If I enjoy Woody Allen films should I feel bad about myself? What about Tolkien or Twain?

 

[ChaosOS]

So there's a few pieces of this for me

To start, while TTRPGs are "art" and "entertainment", they function quite differently to other mediums - we're the ones creating the stories, the rules are just a framework for that. That means as a DM you're taking a much more active role in the furtherance of those harmful stereotypes than if you're passively consuming a complete story written by someone else.

Two, OA specifically is drenched enough in bad stereotypes that it's hard to find the "good parts" that aren't influenced by the bad. As a point of comparison, Lovecraft is notoriously racist, but not all of his works involve those racist ideas. Tolkien and Twain are even more difficult to group there as you're jumping through several layers of association, while OA directly purports to represent D&D with East Asian elements.

Three, bringing up Woody Allen is an interesting example because it's not necessarily about the works but about the life of the creator. My views on this have shifted over time and will certainly shift again, but I think it's worthwhile here to draw a line between "Held bigoted views" and "Committed vile acts". The former is far more forgivable than the latter, as there's direct victims in the latter case. More specifically, creators who commit acts of sexual violence almost always use the perceived value of their contributions to culture as a shield from consequences. As such, right now I come down on the side of "Yes, people who commit acts of violence like Woody Allen or R. Kelly deserve cancellation to the point of boycott"

 

[BookTenTiger]

It can easily cause harm for future products as well as place a 'black mark' or 'social scarlet letter' on people who prefer to play, for example, 1e OA. With this sticker, it is basically saying "People in those days were racist and it is reflected in the product. If you like these products, you are racist".

That's the problem with labeling a work of fiction as "problematic". There is no line. There is no way to say "THIS is ok, but THAT is not ok"....because it is all going to be in the eye of the beholder/reader.

It also does harm to those who prefer the older systems. Those people (like me) will be even more 'looked down on' or have their ideas/opinions given less weight because "Oh, well, HE plays 1e Oriental Adventures....so you know what kind of person HE probably is...." (extreme example, but I hope you see the point). It, the sticker, is basically saying "Stuff in here is racist, written by people who were racist and played by people who were racist".

Lastly...how many online forums, chat rooms, social media sites, and gamer hang-outs or VTT's might use this as a means to "disallow any discussion or playing of [Legacy AD&D Games] due to WotC's admission that they contain what they might classify as 'hate speech'"? None right now....but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the near future.

There's a lot to unpack here, but I think overall you are saying "media I enjoy being labeled as problematic makes me feel uncomfortable."

Is that right?

If so, that's okay!

I was a literature major in college, and I love to read "classics," but boy are there some old-fashioned and harmful depictions of non-white folk in these books!

And I was watching Back to the Future the other night, and man oh man that scene where Chuck Berry gets the idea for Rock N Roll from Marty McFly is very problematic!

But you know what? I still really enjoy classic literature, and I still really enjoy Back to the Future and a lot of 80's movies. It's just that, while watching and enjoying this media, it's my responsibility as a modern, empathetic human being to understand that no matter the author's intent, these depictions were harmful at the time and are still harmful. And if I were writing a Great American Novel or a screenplay, I would make sure not to carry forward harmful stereotypes and tropes.

I remember in college classes, for the first time discussing the harmful gender stereotypes in Disney movies, or the racism of the American education system (going all the way back to when Thomas Jefferson decided who does and who does not get free public education, and guess how he decided it???), or silencing of non-white non-male voices throughout the history of American literature, you better believe I felt uncomfortable! These things I loved were... racist??? But I'm not racist!

It took a lot of discussion, and thinking, and reading for me to realize that I exist within a system of oppression, racism, sexism, ageism, etc etc etc, and that though realizing this can make me feel uncomfortable, it is important to be able to see the flaws in our system so I can work to make it better.

(And, by the way, that's why I became a teacher!)

You are absolutely right that there's no line where realizing something is or isn't problematic ends. That's because it's a cycle. It's a cycle of creation, reflection, discussion, and revision. It's a cycle that's been happening for a long time in D&D and other media too, and will continue. And it should! We should never stop talking about this- wouldn't that be the true censorship?

I think I outlined my overall thoughts on it all above. And I don't think anyone would honestly read the disclaimer and feel better. That was my point. That this disclaimer is, well, virtually pointless. It isn't going to do any good...but it very well may cause some harm to the people who prefer those older games and want to talk about them online or play them on VTT's or even at conventions. I can see it now, a conventions ToS stating "Open Tables: Play any RPG you want...as long as it is inclusive and doesn't have any disclaimer about it containing 'ethnic, racial or gender prejudices'; those are strictly forbidden!". I mean, after all, if someone is going to be offended by OA being available for sale on a web site...does anyone think such a person wouldn't immediately fly into a tizzy, rush over to the convention organizers and demand that they stop that game from being played in public because now said person is in 'fear for their life due to such a game being played by a group of people'? Without that "sticker", the convention people could logically say "We'll sit in and watch for a bit. If they are having [badwrongfun], we will stop it". But, WITH the sticker? Now their hands are tied; the very makers of the game are 'admitting' that the game has ethnic, racial and/or gender prejudices....so playing it in public at a convention is, effectively, the convention supporting that "style of play".

Bottom line. The sticker isn't going to make anyone feel welcome....but it may very well make a large group of people that enjoy those older games feel unwelcome.

Time will tell, however, so we'll have to see. I hope I am wrong.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I want to challenge you on this, Paul.

You acknowledge that this disclaimer makes you feel harmed and uncomfortable, because you are worried about being labeled a racist. I understand that fear.

I want you to try and empathize with those who read these older materials and see harmful depictions of their own culture and identity, whether intentionally included or not. Do you see how they could also feel harmed and uncomfortable?

I don't think a disclaimer is the final line here. As has already been discussed, WotC (and Hasbro) needs to take a lot of steps in hiring a more diverse staff and being welcoming to more diverse voices.

Acknowledging that harm has occurred, though, is a necessary step towards making positive changes. It can be an uncomfortable step, as you are experiencing. But I think it's okay to enjoy old media, even if there are harmful stereotypes. You just have to be aware and accept the responsibility to not carry those forward. And a disclaimer is a great way to prepare people to do just that!

 

[Farenn]

As far as OA goes, not every person from Asia has a problem with it. There are some people from Japan who think that Mr. Kwan is wrong in his views.

As an Asian I have never had a problem with it. i thought that it was a pretty cool book. I was always obsessed with the samurai so naturally I was thrilled to be able to play one in D&D. The first time I ever saw the book was at a friends house who was also Asian.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not in the least offended, but I'm pretty sure if I used the word mutts to describe a mixed group of Asians, Africans or any other non-white ethnicities I'd be reported so fast and banned from the thread. And this is the example of the sensitivity which exists on the other side which is taking offense with OA, orcs, goblins and the rest.

EDIT: Imagine if it was called Adventures of [insert group] Mutts.
In comparison Oriental smells like flowers.

"American" is not an ethnicity, and nobody is disadvantaged because they're American. Portraying non-white ethnicities as too sensitive is not acceptable. Don't post in this thread again.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Citation massively needed. Really multiple, detailed citations. This is a wild claim and definitely not as plainly true as you claim it is. There's some truth in it for sure, but unless you can find some god-tier citations, it's not the hard fact you're claiming.

You want me to provide citations proving that the depictions of various humanoid monsters in history aren't to caricature Jews, but rather caricatures of ethnic groups like Jews were done to emulate more monstrous appearances? Seriously? Well, we know goblins were in cultures around the entire world, in many who had no idea what Jewish people were to begin with. So it would be impossible for them to stylize goblins after Jewish stereotypes. Secondly, it's psyops 101 (literally, it's in the first course I took when in the military) to dehumanize your opponent. make them less than human. More monstrous. it's why all of those pejorative depictions of Africans, Japanese, and Jews were done in the first place. It's obvious that when you take something human and exaggerate features to make them look abnormal, it instills uncomfortable and fear. It's why it's probably one of the most common horror tropes out there in monster design for horror movies. You're asking me to cite the obvious? Sorry, start with a history book. And then google WWII stereotypes in propaganda art.

The big problem you're going to face is that many of these creatures didn't even have specific or consistent appearances. The idea that goblins were some sort of solid, consistent concept in the past is fundamentally false.

EXACTLY. Which is why I made my post in the first place that disagreed BoxCrayonTales assertion that the reason people don't like goblins is because they are Jewish stereotypes. Even if you look at D&D only, most of the depiction of goblins over the decades do not have the typical Jewish stereotypes. So their claim that goblins are caricatures of Jewish people is flat out false. That was my point.

There is a big leap between fairy tales and the modern fantasy genre.

so now you're moving goalposts. Ok. Noted. Let's stick with fantasy. Let's look at the biggest influence on modern fantasy: JRR Tolkien. The goblins there didn't resemble Jewish stereotypes. In fact, he modeled the dwarves after those stereotypes so we know without doubt that he did not model the orcs/goblins after them. And in those books, the goblins did pretty much everything the nazis did (limited to technology) and more, because they also kept their captives to eat. They invaded lands, murdered everyone they could, captured and tortured prisoners (same basic thing as as a death camp), etc. You keep asking for proof, when the proof is literally the most popular work of fantasy ever. And I'm not even talking about other fantasy representations, like countless D&D adventures and novels.

You are the one making these claims in the first place. The burden of proof is on you, not me. If you are saying that I'm ignorant, then that is a very big reason to doubt your claims.

I can easily find several conversations about people being upset with how orcs and goblins are treated in D&D fantasy literature. There have been almost a half dozen threads about it just here on this site in the past month. Where are all the discussions of the same people getting upset about real world ethnicities, religions, and nationalities being treated as inherently bad and worthy of destruction in all of the other wargames and RPGs? where are all of the discussions making an outrcry about how Germanic people were in games where you're the Romans fighting off the savage barbarian hordes? That's your proof. More people are more upset about fictional monsters being treated as wholly evil and worthy of destruction, but we don't see hardly any of the same outcry when it's barbarian tribes in a historical wargame being destroyed. If you're asking me to prove a negative (prove that those don't exist), then that speaks volumes about your position.

If you read my responses on these types of threads, I actually support changing the way orcs and such are depicted. But I was simply making an observation that we seem to be making more of an uproar about fictional monsters rather than games that represented actual historical people. And I disagreed with your claim that goblins in general were caricatures of Jewish stereotypes, because history, geography, and the evidence disagree with you. Finding one or two examples in a pool of hundreds does not mean all goblins in general represent Jewish stereotypes.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

They should start preemptively printing a similar disclaimer in all new D&D books, so that anyone who picks them up in 30 years know that they are based on outdated values.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Hiya!



Yes, possibly. It can easily cause harm for future products as well as place a 'black mark' or 'social scarlet letter' on people who prefer to play, for example, 1e OA. With this sticker, it is basically saying "People in those days were racist and it is reflected in the product. If you like these products, you are racist". ...or at least to varying degrees of that. Now, lets advance the timeline a bit. Say it's now 2024 and we have 6e. Are the original 5e things going to "need a sticker"? I mean, right now there is a debate/bruhaha over the "drow and orcs = evil black people" as well as even the TERM "race" to describe a PC as Human, Elf, Gnome, etc. So, when 6e comes out...does 5e get a sticker on it? What about products that aren't even released now? What if a 5e product comes out that is seen as "offensive" to...oh, Russians? A "baba yaga" type adventure that details the "people of the cold, cruel northern wastelands"...Russia is not all 'tundra' and Russians are not 'cold, dire and stoic'...but to fit the adventure, the human's in that adventure may be set up that way. Does it need a sticker? Are all those who enjoy it, secretly Russian-haters?

That's the problem with labeling a work of fiction as "problematic". There is no line. There is no way to say "THIS is ok, but THAT is not ok"....because it is all going to be in the eye of the beholder/reader. As an example: Rules. How many debates have we had on these forums about, say, the Stealth rules? How many times do we look at what is written and say "Well, I never interpreted it that way...I always saw it as...."? A bajillion times, that's how many (plus or minus a jillion). And this is with ACTUAL RULES. When we are talking about descriptions "Orcs are [insert description]"...well, you can have a hundred different people, each with a different take on what they feel an orc and orc society is/should be.

It also does harm to those who prefer the older systems. Those people (like me) will be even more 'looked down on' or have their ideas/opinions given less weight because "Oh, well, HE plays 1e Oriental Adventures....so you know what kind of person HE probably is...." (extreme example, but I hope you see the point). It, the sticker, is basically saying "Stuff in here is racist, written by people who were racist and played by people who were racist".

Lastly...how many online forums, chat rooms, social media sites, and gamer hang-outs or VTT's might use this as a means to "disallow any discussion or playing of [Legacy AD&D Games] due to WotC's admission that they contain what they might classify as 'hate speech'"? None right now....but I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in the near future.




I think I outlined my overall thoughts on it all above. And I don't think anyone would honestly read the disclaimer and feel better. That was my point. That this disclaimer is, well, virtually pointless. It isn't going to do any good...but it very well may cause some harm to the people who prefer those older games and want to talk about them online or play them on VTT's or even at conventions. I can see it now, a conventions ToS stating "Open Tables: Play any RPG you want...as long as it is inclusive and doesn't have any disclaimer about it containing 'ethnic, racial or gender prejudices'; those are strictly forbidden!". I mean, after all, if someone is going to be offended by OA being available for sale on a web site...does anyone think such a person wouldn't immediately fly into a tizzy, rush over to the convention organizers and demand that they stop that game from being played in public because now said person is in 'fear for their life due to such a game being played by a group of people'? Without that "sticker", the convention people could logically say "We'll sit in and watch for a bit. If they are having [badwrongfun], we will stop it". But, WITH the sticker? Now their hands are tied; the very makers of the game are 'admitting' that the game has ethnic, racial and/or gender prejudices....so playing it in public at a convention is, effectively, the convention supporting that "style of play".

Bottom line. The sticker isn't going to make anyone feel welcome....but it may very well make a large group of people that enjoy those older games feel unwelcome.

Time will tell, however, so we'll have to see. I hope I am wrong.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

My problem with this line of thinking, with worrying about "but what about in 6e when this is banned or 7e when that is banned" is that it is a cry for inaction.

The insidious thing is, that it doesn't even matter if something is actually wrong and needs fixed or not, with this line of thinking changing or banning anything no matter how harmful or how grotesque would need to be opposed.

All this sticker says is that some of the depictions within some of these books are products of a time past. And you are worried about people discriminating against you and labeling you a racist or misogynist at conventions where you might have one of these books? The people who were going to judge you because they walked by your table and saw a 1e copy of the monster manual were going to do that anyways. And they have no more power now than they did last month.