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

 

[MNblockhead]

I wonder if the greater challenge will be the far easten Asian market, China, South-Korea and Japan, because the relationship between these neighbors haven't been too good, and when you try to be polite with one then the other could be annoyed. Even with the best intentions any times the balace for correctness is not easy.

There are political land mines throughout the world. Have spent a good part of my life living and working and visiting China, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, I think chance of hitting a trip wire are less than many other parts of the world--especially those areas where religious divisions are far stronger. As long as your game is not dealing with real-world history or using real-world maps, I think it is easy to avoid issues. Especially in a game with made-up fantasy worlds and peoples.

Heck, even something like the old Oriental Adventures books would cause less offense in East Asian than is does in America.

Where you are likely to get into trouble is going to be in the area of gender and sexuality and I would expect it would be far less of an issue in most of East Asian than in many other parts of the world. But companies need to determine what their stance is on these things and sometimes decide that it is just better losing certain markets than bowing to oppression and censorship.

 

[FrogReaver]

In the one corner you have a person of race X saying that something is racially offensive. In the other corner you have a person of race X saying that same something is not racially offensive.

Who should I believe?

 

[Irlo]

In the one corner you have a person of race X saying the something is racially offensive. In the other corner you have a person of race X saying that same something is not racially offensive.

Who should I believe?

Believe that one person is offended and that the other person is not.

 

[Azzy]

In the one corner you have a person of race X saying the something is racially offensive. In the other corner you have a person of race X saying that same something is not racially offensive.

Who should I believe?

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

 

[Mecheon]

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.

How is this even remotely censorship?

"Stop being bullies" isn't censorship. Its feedback.

Heck, this entire situation isn't 'censorship' in the slightest. Its feedback. Its "You produced this thing, we don't like how it goes, please change it." Feedback. No one is being censored. They're instead receiving feedback and changing what they've produced based on this by, going back and editing things.

Calling it censorship is like saying if you get cold chips at Maccas, you're censoring them for going back and requesting hot ones. This isn't what censorship means.

 

[Vincent55]

I really think they have gone way overboard with this stuff, i mean orcs are orcs flying monkeys are well flying monkeys both are made up and have no real-world representations.

 

[Ixal]

How is this even remotely censorship?

"Stop being bullies" isn't censorship. Its feedback.

Heck, this entire situation isn't 'censorship' in the slightest. Its feedback. Its "You produced this thing, we don't like how it goes, please change it." Feedback. No one is being censored. They're instead receiving feedback and changing what they've produced based on this by, going back and editing things.

Calling it censorship is like saying if you get cold fries at Maccas, you're censoring them for going back and requesting hot ones. This isn't what censorship means.

I never used the word censorship.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

And I promise you that everything is offensive to someone.

 

[Mecheon]

I never used the word censorship.

You said "Censor"

Where you intending on using "Censure"? Which is a very different word.

 

[Ixal]

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

How many people need to be offended before WotC must change something? Again in regards to the Satan Panic people.
And how can this number even be determined? Twitter noise?