D&D 5E Thoughts on this article about Black Culture & the D&D team dropping the ball?

[AmerginLiath]

My first thought: I was reading the very neat black D&D culture of Ergoth in Dragonlance thirty years ago (likely before most of the Kotaku staff were born) and playing an Ergothian in a campaign — I’m a white guy, mind you — twenty years ago. I seriously doubt that anyone at any of the Gawker-leftovers know what they’re talking about here any more than they do regarding anything else, preferring crafting false arguments to doing proper research.

 

[DEFCON 1]

We're at a time culturally where the progression of representation is simultaneously being pulled forward and pushed back. A desire for more positive representation in media of historically less-than-flattered or under-represented groups, while at the same time not attempting to represent those groups of which you are not a part because you don't truly understand the life they lead.

The three main buckets that seems to be the most talked about in this regard are racial minorities, women, and members of the LGBTQIA community. Obviously there are many more... the differently-abled, the aged, and so forth, but the former three tend to receive the most conversation.

And the push/pull of any conversation often comes down to this (as an example from the USA perspective): We want to see the African-American experience represented in our media and people will rightly be upset if it is not. But at the same time, there's a question whether a Caucasian person should attempt to represent an African-American character when they have no true knowledge of what the African-American experience truly is? In other words, should Straight White Men only write about straight white male characters, because they can't understand the perspective and life of non- straight white men and thus anything they write or produce is going to be "white-washed" (for lack of a better term).

The reason why this is currently causing issues is because lots of media in all forms is still dominated by straight white men in creative positions. Many authors are straight white men, many writers, directors, and designers of tv and film are straight white men, and many people in the gaming community (as a connection to the Kotaku article) are straight white men (also acknowledging that at least within WotC's D&D department, there are some who don't fall into the 'straight' category). Obviously there has been a strong push to change that... diversity has become an important part of most businesses in the 21st century... but in places where the diversity has not occurred fully yet (say in the D&D department of Wizards of the Coast), how do we rectify the desire for media representation of marginalized groups while at the same time not allowing for straight people or white people or male people to write or create things about non-straight or non-white or non-male people?

There's no way to "win" here. And for a very good reason... EVERYBODY is different. These "groups" we talked about above? They don't really exist. They aren't a monolith that you can "do right" for, because it assumes everyone within it wants the exact same thing. But we know that is not true, not in the slightest. A straight Asian female wants and desires different things than a gay Asian male for example. And it is impossible to do anything that would be completely satisfactory to every single person within any of these "groups" because each person within has a completely different life experience. With regards to Tomb of Annihilation... while several people within the article are critical of WotC's work in this adventure... I'm pretty sure there are other African-American players out there who love it as-is because of WotC trying to create and represent a culture such as we find in Chult. And neither side is "right" and neither side is "wrong". They're just different.

The best any of us can do is be sensitive and do what we think is right. And when some people criticize what we've done as being insensitive (which will always happen because no one will ever agree on what the "right" thing was that should have been done), the best thing for us to do is just listen to them. Listen to what they have to say. Acknowledge their issues and acknowledge their right to have the issues they have. We won't be able to "solve" anything (because most likely anything we did to do so would just end up causing an issue for someone else) but at least we give other people the respect they deserve that their opinions and feelings are just as important as our own.

It's called 'empathy'. And over time... the more empathetic we become, the more we pass on our empathy of others to our children, the better lives of people in the future are going to be.

So what can we take from this Kotaku article? Simply to just acknowledge that the people within it feel the way they do and hear what they have to say. Then take what lessons we can from their feelings and opinions and use it to further our own beliefs going forward. That's really all the best we can do.

 

[Parmandur]

The article was interesting, particularly the quotes from prominent black gamers who didn't hate the take, but were ambivalent about it. They probably should have gotten a prominent black nerd to consult on the book.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My problems with racism is following:
Yes, everyone should be treated equally. But what soes that mean? Everyone is different.
If I meet someone, and I hear an intersting foreign name, I often tell the person that I like that name and ask where it comes from. If I ask a black person, he or she might think I am racist. (Just read an article about that).
If I want to do a foto shooting for an advertisement, I have a problem. If I ask the only black person to be a part of that shooting or I don't ask he or she. In both cases I might be seen as racist, and actually I might be, because I thought about that at all. To not be racist, I need different intentions why I ask someone and not the other one. But since people are used to that kind of racism, I might seem racist in both cases.
I think it is a similar problem in DnD depiction of chult.
If you want a jungle setting and make it full of white people, you are equally racist as when you make it full of black people.
And not every place is cosmopolitan...
So whatever you do can be seen in the light of racism or in the aspect of creating a fantasy world that borrows from different places and times of our own history. If you make every place the same, why chose different places at all.
Usually it is more the tone of the writing that is important and not the facts that are represented.
It is important that chultan people are described as having dark skin. But they should be adressed as chultan not as blacks or natives or whatever. Some things are facts, but not important. Skin colour is fact, wild jungles are facts. Both are not directly connected, but both have the same origin: the climate in that region.

 

[neobolts]

This is a loaded subject if there ever was one, and it'll be interesting to see if this thread rises above....or is going to eventually get locked.

My thoughts:

1. WotC is trying. I will say that the current design team at WotC has shown itself to be in touch with the times and thoughtful in how they portray diverse groups. The article tends to acknowledge that while at the same time raising complaints. WotC has intentionally evolved the setting in a progressive way, to more mirror a post-imperialism setting. This move alone speaks to their intentions. And at the end of the day IMHO intentions matter.

2. Settings are generally "broad brush". The author takes issue with the historical inspirations being drawn from a hodgepodge of subcultures. I'm not sure what the alternative would be. A broad brush that picks the most interesting elements of various cultures over many centuries seems like an obvious approach from an adventure writing standpoint. The most classic D&D settings are a highlight reel mixing European middle ages and renaissance history with European folklore...Greek myths, French traditions, English knighthood all mashed up. Perhaps it is fair to say "it's a mashup and remix of histories and folklores...but this time Africa" and move on.

3. Does it boil down to design team representation? The article's author was nonplussed with a lack of POC on the design team. If the article's author discovered that POC were on the design team, would that have changed their opinion? I suspect it might, but have no way of knowing. As such, this may be the real takeaway for WotC. Have a person with the appropriate background [in this case, history/culture of Africa] on the design team, or a consultant with an expertise in that area giving feedback.

 

[Dausuul]

I haven't read Tomb of Annihilation, and I have no plans to buy it, so I don't know how well the article's criticisms apply in context; but assuming that it presents the material fairly, its conclusions are reasonable. I looked up Graeme Barber's review at https://pocgamer.com/2017/10/13/tomb-of-annihilation-review-part-1-chult-in-5e, which is sharply critical of the way the setting was executed.

The sum of the criticisms in both articles, as I read it, is that Chult remains a mash-up of African stereotypes. 5E avoided being blatantly offensive (apparently the 4E book actually described the Chulteans as a mix of "noble savages" and "depraved cannibals," which... I have no words), so that's progress, sorta. But it's still a stew of tired pan-African tropes.

One point that Barber makes is that ToA kept the setting material to a minimum, and that this has a very different impact on a setting like Chult which has been handled sketchily (in both senses of the word) in the past, compared to the Sword Coast which has been exhaustively detailed across the editions. I can understand WotC's reasoning here: They said they thought players and DMs would be bored by a big focus on the setting, and I think they're right. But that doesn't excuse being careless with the setting material they do include; quite the contrary.

(Again, this is assuming both reviewers are fairly presenting the content of the book, which I haven't and probably won't read.)

 

[gyor]

Okay this is being analyised by people who don’t know the setting, and so they analysize using insectionality, which leads them to false conclusions, let me explain.

The Contients we know about are Faerun (mostly persuado europe), Kara Tur (persuado Asia), Zakhara (persuado Middle East, with abit of India in parts), Osse (persuado Australia, precolonization), Maztica (persuado Mesoamerica, very limited colonization, not particulary successful colonization), Archome (persuado North America pre colonization), Returned Abeir (weird area that likely returned to Abeir).

Here is the deal Chult isn’t supposed to the Forgotten Realms analog to Africa, that would be a large continent to the south, called Katshasa where the Chultans originally come from, having converted and summon by the God/Primordial Ubtao so the “Chultans” WERE the colonizing people, who partly displaced the Yuan Ti who were the indiginous population of Chult.

Chult is themed as a “lost continent” aka Sir Conan Doyle, but still a part of Faerun.

Yeah in FR the “Africans/Katasa” colonized “Europe/Faerun” but a Europe with greater biodiversity, and which already had a Native Black population, the Turmish.

The Chultans started out as a cultural diverse group of tribes, but eventually under verious pressures, merged.

The why Chultan culture appears to be a Blend of Cultures from Katasha, just as the various Shou Communities in Faerun are a merging of Shou Lung, Tu Lung, Wa, ect... cultures from Kara Tur, but they are very seperate in Katasha and Kara Tur.

Now the Turmish are native to Faerun, where they are large minorities in Mulhorand, Unther, maybe Chessenta.

But the Turmish are a Majority in the nation of Turmish, which is the only Major Democracy in Faerun and the home of the Emerald Enclave, which is the most powerful enivormental group in Faerun, lead by Druids. They are lead ruled by The Assembly of Stars, which is the legislative body of Turmish.

 Turmish culture is African in clothing fashion, but peoples names sound Italian, I don’t know why. 

Turmish and Chultans do not seem to be related, dispite both being black peoples, I don’t know why.

In Katasha Ubtao isn’t worshipped, they have their own Gods.

We have never seen current Katasha, no one from Faerun visits there in current times, so we don’t know what it looks like, except its African in Flavour.

 

 

[Sunseeker]

As far as Kotaku articles go I've read worse. Don't know if I have anything interesting to add though, it seems their biggest sticking point is that they just wished WotC would have made something totally new and done some better research. Two claims I can't hold against them. There has been plenty of commotion here, if not for new black-fantasy, but for something new at all.

 

[Greg Benage]

I think it's a worthwhile exercise to discuss these issues and to listen to what POC have to say about them. Ultimately, I'd hope we all want the hobby to be as welcoming to everyone as it can possibly be, and these kinds of conversations can help.

I typically only have a problem with it when a groupthink congeals and then shifts into online attack mode: creators ought to be able to create without feeling like they're walking on eggshells, or worse, suffer the ravages of the internet call-out culture and its wokeness signaling. But then creators also ought to be ready to listen and think about any cultural/social concerns prompted by the work they produce.

 

[Evenglare]

Let me address the main crux of both of these posts, because IMO claiming you shouldn't be able to criticize or critique something unless you yourself can do it is just silly and absurd.


Or they just aren't writers, game designers, etc. there's a very big barrier to entry otherwise we wouldn't pay for this stuff we'd all be successfully publishing our own stuff as our day jobs. What you're asking for here is akin to saying if you don't like a videogame then create your own... or if you don't like a car build your own. It's perfectly reasonable to critique something without being able to create said thing yourself. Most movie critics don't make movies even though they critique them, sports analysts don't necessarily play the sport they critique and so on. So yeah claiming you should make your own or shut up... doesn't really hold any real water.

Oh I absolutely agree with this, but, my point still stands. They can do that, they can gripe all they want, but they aren't actually contributing to push forward meaningful change. And you know what. I'll even give you all your points on how they don't need to be designers to make the game/movie/song/whatever. EVEN THEN, there are still ways of providing meaningful change relevant to her job. She can contact the designers, and sit down with them and talk about the situation, and no short snippits at a convention don't qualify since is such a big issue. Even emails directly to the people that run wizards, mearls, the people at hasbro. Has she sent emails explaining the situation? Or is she just hoping that the higher ups will stumble upon the article. I'd bet money that other than the article shes done NOTHING to actually further the cause for legitimate change about the stuff she's whining about.

Be the change you want to see in the world. Talk is cheap, take action.