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)

 

[Ravenbrook]

Why hasn't this thread been closed yet? Why haven't the moderators stepped in yet?

 

[Chaosmancer]

The general reaction to the high dollar Mcdonalds coffee lawsuit for years has been something between disbelief and outrage. A few actually paid attention to the facts there but most did not. The story most people believe about that incident makes for a very good comparison here IMO.

Seems I should have read a bit further, but since you knew the facts, it makes me wonder, why bring up the false narrative meant to discredit the real story as a comparison?

That would be like seeing someone being investigated for abuse and asking about how that compares to the guy arrested because his wife fell down a flight of stairs. Even though the truth was he hospitalized her.

Yes, the false narrative meant to make the situation look ridiculous is ridiculous.

Very well stated. How do you come down on disrespecting players and DMs who take the good parts of supplements that are often called out as problematic?

Can I take the sex positive and LGBT rep presentation from BoEF without being called a loser in enworld?

I want to agree with this point. I'm in a play by post game with some very erotic elements. And finding source material for things has been difficult.

And I get that, to a degree, WoTC is likely to never again publish something with positive elements toward eroticism, and most of the people who make homebrew for it are... designing with poor intent I shall phrase it. But, there are elements we have found in books like the BoEF that have been useful or at least pointing us in the direction of rules that we would want to use.

So, I agree, mocking people for using rule books that are "close enough" to what they really want is in poor taste. Same with the BoED or the BoVD. Sometimes, they are just close enough to what we are really after, and are used as a jumping off point.

 

[DnD Warlord]

Why hasn't this thread been closed yet? Why haven't the moderators stepped in yet?

Why would you want it closed?

 

[CleverNickName]

Yeah, I agree; it's probably time to close it. This thread stopped being about the books on DM's Guild and DriveThru RPG a long time ago, and I'm a little bored with the rhetoric about who is allowed to say what. Again.

But I'm not a moderator; it's not my call.

 

[Mercurius]

Hrrrm, let's compare shall we?

So, at least one person has flat out stated that he doesn't care if other people are made to feel uncomfortable and that, in a public space, they don't even have the right to express that discomfort.

Why aren't you taking that to task @Mercurius? I mean, you're pretty quick to jump on @Umbran here for a "back handed comment" but, when someone straight up says that they don't care if they offend someone in a public place, that's allowed to pass without comment?

There was a poster booted for linking to a site filled with bile and epithets, and yet, that passes without comment as well.

At what point do we get to point out a rather strong correlation between those who don't care about others and those who oppose this disclaimer?

I agree that people have the right to express their discomfort. Where it gets "iffy" for me is when they want to affect the lives of others due to their discomfort. More to the point, I don't think the automatic solution to discomfort is to ask others to change their behavior, or to try to cancel something from availability. In some cases, I'm not opposed to things being taken down - but it really depends upon the situation.

As for the pming comment, I didn't read that interaction and don't know the context. I read this one and felt impelled to say my piece.

I don't agree with every single person about every single thing on either "side" of this debate, nor do I "jump on" everything that I disagree with.

I'm not familiar with what poster you refer to that was boosted. Are you talking about the Satanis petition? Well, I only skimmed it, didn't sign it and thought it was a bit over-the-top.

None of this excuses what I was pointing at.

 

[Mercurius]

This is extremely well put and I'd urge that you or others act on this post to write-up a petition that reflects this sentiment, including its nuance and respect, and articulate a counter-position that's worth our time. For, all the petitions we've seen so far this week are simply too stupid to be believed. I already quoted Venger Satanis's above, and here then is the lastest version (Source):

Bolding in original. I re-bold it because the content/author distinction which the petition makes a point of underlining is completely missed by it.

Now, this is somewhat less idiotic than the last version, since it removed the peripheral name-calling. But make no mistake, at heart it's the same old shtick of confusing the content and authorial levels.

This petition, like the last one, makes the classical fallacy of the intentionalist prejudice. Per the intentionalist prejudice, if a work of art - say, a Riefenstahl movie or a drama by the Marquis de Sade - is characterized as glorifying certain causes or actions (racism, the debasing of women), then ipso faco the author who produced that content must, at the sheer level of autobiography, be a racist or sexist. Not only is this is logically invalid - there's at least one if not several missing premises here - it's also historically false. Riefenstahl was instrumentalizing the causes she depicted for personal gain--no small feat for a female film-maker in her day--as opposed to being unwittingly co-opted by them; historians to this day debate the nature of her personal convictions. De Sade used his vignettes to illustrate the power politics of his day (pre- and post-1789), and was equally critical of all participants involved, regardless of gender.

Here's the point. You can both say that certain works of art are racist or sexist at the content level, and advise caution in their reception, while not slandering their authors or consumers with those epithets. For, as everyone knows, you only become full-on sexist or racist if you espouse those views at the personal, intentional level. And nothing of the kind is insinuated by a disclaimer about content.

This isn't anything new--we've seen content disclaimers on adult fiction and VHS tapes for decades--and to pretend otherwise is quite the feat of cognitive dissonance.

Hence, to harp on about how "insulting" the disclaimer is to authors of old and fans of now is spectacularly stupid. It replicates the exact "outrage brigade" knee jerk reaction that the same persons signing this petition laugh at when they see it engaged elsewhere. What repels me morally about the petition is not its idiocy but its hypocrisy.

Well said, and I agree. As I said before, there are extreme views on either side that are problematic in their own ways. I don't have a problem with the disclaimer at all, and disagree with those who think it should be taken down, just as I disagree with those on the other extreme, who think OA should be removed.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

Hrrrm, let's compare shall we?

So, at least one person has flat out stated that he doesn't care if other people are made to feel uncomfortable and that, in a public space, they don't even have the right to express that discomfort.

Just to point out...I didn't say that I didn't care if people are made to feel uncomfortable. I said that people in public have no right to "not feel uncomfortable". I don't wish anyone to feel uncomfortable when going into public. Especially a game convention open to the public or available for access via simple ticket purchase by the public. Yes, the hosts/convention hall owners have rights that let them kick people out for whatever reason. But the fact remains; a publicly accessible event, even when heled on private property, does give that public certain rights and expectations. But that's a whole other ball game and why I didn't get into it in the post where it was pointed out.

Likewise, I NEVER said that people don't have the right to express that discomfort. I am wholeheartedly against that entire idea. If someone wants to be free to play a game some may get offended by, then that person should accept that they may get yelled at when someone gets offended. On the flip side, if you walk by someone doing/saying something that offends you, you have the right to verbally oppose them.

It all boils down to freedom. The freedom to offend. The freedom to debate. The freedom to walk away. What shouldn't you be free to do? Have someone fired from their job (for example) because they like someone you don't, or because they said something you disagree with, or because they don't subscribe to the same world-view as you do, or because they "hurt your feelings" by playing a game that offends you.

There is a wise old statement that gets FAR less play nowadays than it should. It goes like this: "Lets just agree to disagree and go our separate ways". That's what WotC should have done in stead of putting a useless sticker on a 35 year old product. You (generic "you") think Oriental Adventures is rive with bad stereotypes and whatnot....I do not. Which one of us is "right"? Which one of us gets to decide? Neither. That's why we have that whole "freedom" think I talked about above. I have the freedom to play OA and say "Huh. I never saw it like that. I think it's a nice amalgamation of cool oriental fantasy stuff"....and 'you' have the freedom to say "You don't see the problems I see with it. It offends me when I read it". Then we both agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

Not enough of that "live and let live" going on in society now. Too many people are falling into the "US versus THEM" 'clique' mentality...and anyone who refuses to pick a side is placed into both, in stead of neither.

PS: I'm done with this thread. IMNSHO, this 'news' shouldn't have even been posted. The entirety of the news subject virtually assured that people from opposing views would come and each argue their point. I fell into the trap. I should do better and just ignore them. I will do better in the future and I encourage everyone to do the same. If an article comes up that basically necessitates using words, terms and ideas that go contrary to the sites "Terms and Rules"...just ignore it. People are different and don't usually agree on everything. It's not going to end well. For anyone.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[basilforth]

In my opinion, adding a disclaimer is a much healthier option than retro-actively editing or removing content.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The implication is clear: if you don't unquestioningly agree with offended people, you don't care about the pain of other people. You either agree or you're part of the problem.

In the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, if you were for the movement, history remembers you as good. If you were against or indifferent to it, you're a part of the problem. That's kind of how things work.

It ignores the possibility that, some of us at least, do care about other people, but either think some of the assumptions that lead to being offended are erroneous and based on one-sided interpretation, and/or don't think that the suggested course of action will lead to a positive result.

And it's a one-sided interpretation to assume that there isn't a problem, and that the arguments aren't valid, or should be viewed as invalid until proven valid.

 

[Mercurius]

In the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, if you were for the movement, history remembers you as good. If you were against or indifferent to it, you're a part of the problem. That's kind of how things work.

Yes, when the movement actually leads to progress. But when it leads to erasing history, censorship, or perpetuating the problem it seeks to solve, it doesn't work out so well. Your statement is based upon the assumption that OA/Orcgate is synonymous to the Civil Rights movement. I don't agree with that equivalency and in fact find it somewhat absurd, not to mention insulting to those impacted by the CR movement.

And it's a one-sided interpretation to assume that there isn't a problem, and that the arguments aren't valid, or should be viewed as invalid until proven valid.

I didn't say there wasn't a problem. And I understand the interpretation, I just don't think it takes into account other interpretations. I try to take into account multiple interpretations and weigh them, trying to come up with a synthesis. That's not "one-sided."