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

 

[Hussar]

Thats exactly the point though. People assume, or rather, expect that someone else will be offended and speak (get offended) on their behalf. So much so that it seems that the people getting offended on other people behalf vastly outnumber the affected people who are offended. So was it even warranted to feel offence on other peoples behalf, or are you projecting your feeling of offence onto them and in the end silencing their opinion?

Seems to who?

To you? How do you know that the people getting offended on other people's behalf vastly outnumber the affected people? Do you have anything other than your own gut feeling here?

People are telling you, directly, that they find this thing (whatever this thing happens to be) offensive. Instead of constantly questioning their motives and insisting on some sort of bar be set before anyone is allowed to voice their concerns, how about instead actually addressing the concerns.

And, as an added bonus, stick to the actual issue at hand. This is just textbook whataboutism. No one is talking about anything other than the SPECIFIC issue at hand. By trying to then extrapolate into all possibilities, you are not actually helping anything. There is no one standard that will always apply. That's an impossible goal. Deal with what's in front of you. Fix the problems that are here and now and stop worrying about what might be a problem in some hypothetical future.

 

[Azzy]

As you are when the voices are not saying what you want to hear (I again point to page 4 for an example or the original )

Again, some people not being offended does not negate the ones that are. Stop suggesting otherwise.

But you are correct, bullying is obvious. The problem with the Hadozee or Oriental Adventures is not. At least not to me and not to many other persons. And that includes many people on whos behalf people feel offended for. And yes, its completely possible, even likely, that nationality has a effect on that and that as a non American the connection monkey = black person is far more far fetched than it is for you.

As a non-American you are mostly oblivious to the history of racism in the US and the forms that that racism has taken. What is not obvious to you is very obvious (or should be) to many Americans (especially those that are the targets of such depictions are epithets). Your ignorance does not negate the very real offense. As an American company, WotC does not have a similar excuse of ignorance.

And on the other side many people are offended or could be offended, yet their offence does not matter and cause the same kind of response and support because they are not likeable enough (fundamental Christians) or otherwise do not fullfill an arbitrary criteria outside of their control (their culture being deemed an oppressor for example).
For you this criteria might be obvious and logical, for me this arbitrary distinction between people who it is ok to be offended for and people whos offence does not matter devalues this entire idea.

Yes, many of us are more concerned about those with a history of denigration and oppression than those that do not. That's only natural, we must first go to where the most harm has been done (and still continues to be done) before we can move on to those to who little (comparably) harm has been done.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
But even within the D&D world, the complains about Oriental Adventure did not come from people living or having grown up in Asia, but mostly from Americans with no or only small connections to Asian cultures. Yet they complained how Asian culture was represented.

Another thing is, by immediately jumping to support one type of offence you are drowning out the other. The guy on page 4 who complained that people automatically think monkey = African American and are reinforcing this connection by assuming he must be offended by space monkeys that were uplifted to be slaves? His offence gets dismissed because people immediately supported the Hadozee offence. But how many affected people actually made that connection without the internet outrage on behalf of others?

So, since I've spent most of my life living in Asia, and I'm offended by Oriental Adventures, does that mean that my opinion automatically trumps yours since you do not live in Asia and likely have no connections to Asian cultures?

Is it a numbers game? We're only allowed to be offended if we can find enough people? We're not allowed to be offended unless you say we can be offended? I need your permission to be offended?

Since I actually DO live in Asia, shouldn't the reverse be true? Shouldn't I be able to tell you that your lack of offence can be safely ignored? After all, that's your arguement.

I'm sorry, but the whole, "Look I found one guy from this racial group who isn't offended, so, no one is allowed to be offended" is unbelievably tone deaf.

 

[MNblockhead]

I suspect that this will be something that a lot of companies will be doing more of over time. The same way Human Resources became more and more of a "thing" over time that companies brought into their businesses because it helped solve potential issues that kept coming up... Inclusivity and Diversity will likely follow suit in US companies especially over the next years.

This is something that large corporate marketing departments have been doing for a long time. I do miss the enjoyment of cringe humor in some of the old examples. Used to be whole web sites devoted to horrible marketing snafus. Note, I'm not saying that including offensive racial or ethnic stereotypes and slurs in your materials is something to be laughed at. Most of the funny examples are more unintentional sexual inuendo due to "correct" translations that totally missed local cultural context.

 

[darjr]

Aren't the people from Asian Represents Canadian?

Is this a sick joke?

 

[Hussar]

Only if the 3 kids actually feel bullied because if they don't you have 15 kids bullying the other 5 (the 2 to stop and the 3 to feel bullied)

No, no, I see where you're going with this.

But, your argument is that because 2 kids don't feel bullied, that one that does can be ignored. After all, he's not representing the majority, so, his concerns shouldn't matter right? What if 2 feel bullied but one doesn't? Does that mean that the other two aren't being bullied at all? That the core of your argument. That you found that one kid that doesn't feel bullied, then no one else has any right to step in on behalf of the two that do feel bullied because now they are ignoring that one kid.

You see how wrong that is, right?

 

[J-H]

I bet this thread is locked before it hits page #16.

 

[bedir than]

On one side you have people who desire to be kind, sometimes failing

On the other side you have people who have no desire to be kind, sometimes failing

As I age, I desire more kindness in the world, not less. I want broader stories, not narrower. I don't need to reread the same tale. I want new tales.
Being kind to those who have suffered from unkindness helps me discover more stories. I'll default towards attempting kindness.

 

[Ixal]

Seems to who?

To you? How do you know that the people getting offended on other people's behalf vastly outnumber the affected people? Do you have anything other than your own gut feeling here?

People are telling you, directly, that they find this thing (whatever this thing happens to be) offensive. Instead of constantly questioning their motives and insisting on some sort of bar be set before anyone is allowed to voice their concerns, how about instead actually addressing the concerns.

And, as an added bonus, stick to the actual issue at hand. This is just textbook whataboutism. No one is talking about anything other than the SPECIFIC issue at hand. By trying to then extrapolate into all possibilities, you are not actually helping anything. There is no one standard that will always apply. That's an impossible goal. Deal with what's in front of you. Fix the problems that are here and now and stop worrying about what might be a problem in some hypothetical future.

The same gut feeling you have and there are also people who are telling you directly that it is not offensive (no, not just me)....

And no, my mind does not work that way. Its not whataboutism, its arbitrary enforcement of rules. When you feel offence on behalf of other people, or even on behalf on an entire culture, then do that for all of them. That includes people you do not like (the fundamentalists) or, because of the nebulous nature of when offence is valid, people you do not even know if they are offended (by a significant amount, especially because of the different perception people seem to have because of their nationality).
For you, focusing on one issue and ignoring the others might be the obvious solution, but to me this looks more like avoiding the hard questions in favour of arbitrary enforcement of rules (which you probably can tell by now I am not a fan of).

Also, for you the the distinction between oppressor and oppressed which people seem to use to decide for who they should feel offense does not work in my eyes because history is rather complicated, especially when you go farther back.

Is this a sick joke?

Why? I looked them up on linkedin and their entire employment and education history is Canadian. Its of course possible that they emigrated to Canada before they went to university, thats why I am asking.

No, no, I see where you're going with this.

But, your argument is that because 2 kids don't feel bullied, that one that does can be ignored. After all, he's not representing the majority, so, his concerns shouldn't matter right? What if 2 feel bullied but one doesn't? Does that mean that the other two aren't being bullied at all? That the core of your argument. That you found that one kid that doesn't feel bullied, then no one else has any right to step in on behalf of the two that do feel bullied because now they are ignoring that one kid.

You see how wrong that is, right?

No the behaviour towards the 1 who feels bullied should be censored. But imo the current situation resembles more that all interaction with all 3 are censored.
For example how not only the Hadozee are changed in the Errata but also the Golem is renamed and the Priest title removed.
And it gets further complicated as the perception of which culture deserves that you are offended on their behalf can change over time so that in a few years things you thought as acceptable now will be offensive to you. Which is another reason why I do not really think focusing on the specific issue is a good idea.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'll default towards attempting kindness.

Didn't you hear? Apparently not including racist tropes in your book is "censorship" now.