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

 

[Minigiant]

The product just felt lazy to me. Wow, reading the errata for these books, you are right its a mess. Disregarding what was changed for inclusiveness, I really get the impression that no one was on the same page, the lead designer didn't lead anything and just left people to their own devices. I appreciate they tried a new format, but I think the lower page count really hurt it. I liked the idea of separate books, but I really dislike that just about every book WotC publishes has to be a hardcover. Definitely going to be more selective of what I buy from them in the future.

Work for any major US corporation. This always happens unless the lead is a super micromanager.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The product just felt lazy to me. Wow, reading the errata for these books, you are right its a mess. Disregarding what was changed for inclusiveness, I really get the impression that no one was on the same page, the lead designer didn't lead anything and just left people to their own devices. I appreciate they tried a new format, but I think the lower page count really hurt it. I liked the idea of separate books, but I really dislike that just about every book WotC publishes has to be a hardcover. Definitely going to be more selective of what I buy from them in the future.

I did not acquire it - as I'm not ready to Spelljam our campaign just yet (we are getting there). The last book I purchased was Descent into Avernus and although I have not done an in-depth look at the book, I'm not sure how I feel about it having skimmed it once. According to this site its 8th on the list (out of 15) - and I quite enjoyed some others which they have marked much higher, so I dunno.
Having never done Spelljammer before I was really looking forward to the 5e book, but considering its poor reception from what I have seen - I might opt to get the older edition material and convert.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Just like to clarify - this is not some kind of apologia for oppression of any kind on any matter that has been before in this thread or about any specific real or fantasy race.
All I'm saying we have multiverses with myriads of species, naturally conflict will arise for all sorts of reasons and the tendency for certain creatures to slave others will likely occur particularly if they are more powerful in one way or another.

Indeed. But would anyone include this content if they were gamemastering with their own chattel slaves bought on the open market in one of the two countries where they (apparently) still legally exist? Wouldn't it be insensitive to them? Would anyone include this content if he were gamemastering with a person who can trace his family tree back enough in time for it to have slaves ancestors? And who can't pay for snacks because all his disenfranchised ancestors were slaves and there was no opportunity for social upward mobility for their direct descendants because it was only a few generations ago and for whom slavery is a problem with current effects and not some theoretical evil that disappeared nearly a millenia ago?

This isn't specific with slavery. Would anyone include stark poverty and famine-stricken peasants in your fantasy if one of the players was indeed penniless and had to resort to begging for food? Or would one tone it done when selecting an adventure to run?

Even if a person or even a large group of person would, because none of these cases can reasonably apply to anyone one will game with, WotC is writing products for a market where one can actually have a slave ancestor in a timeframe where it matters, so they must take that into account and would refrain from displaying in the limelight those races who would, in fiction, have no qualm resorting to slavery.

 

[Umbran]

Trigger Warning

So, I find it interesting that the first article you link says that hate requires obliteration of context...

...but then give no context around why you feel these articles are meaningful.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Indeed. But would you include this content if you were gamemastering with your own chattel slaves you bought on the open market in one of the two countries where they (apparently) still legally exist? Wouldn't it be insensitive to them? Would you include this content if you were gamemastering with a person who can trace his family tree back enough in time for it to have slaves ancestors? And who can't pay for snacks because all his disenfranchised ancestors were slaves and there was no opportunity for social upward mobility for their direct descendants?

This isn't specific with slavery. Would you include stark poverty and famine-stricken peasants in your fantasy if one of your players was indeed penniless and had to resort to begging for food? Or would you tone it done when selecting an adventure to run?

Even if you would because none of these cases can reasonably apply to anyone you'll game with, WotC is writing products for a market where one can actually have a slave ancestor in a timeframe where it matters, so they must take that into account and would refrain from displaying in the limelight those races who would, in fiction, have no qualm resorting to slavery.

I'm not sure how you imagine things are being run at my table, but I feel given the sorts of examples you placed right at the outset (which I must say is pretty mad), I would not be able to answer in the way I would prefer (on this forum, especially given the wild misunderstandings that would occur as evidenced from the first post I made in this thread) - so I'm going to give your post a pass. Sorry.

 

[darjr]

So, I find it interesting that the first article you link says that hate requires obliteration of context...

...but then give no context around why you feel these articles are meaningful.

Well you went and read it! I dint think that’s what’s normally expected. More like glance at it and “yea go team!”

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I'm not sure how you imagine things are being run at my table, but I feel given the sorts of examples you placed right at the outset (which I must say is pretty mad), I would not be able to answer in the way I would prefer (on this forum, especially given the wild misunderstandings that would occur as evidenced from the first post I made in this thread) - so I'm going to give your post a pass. Sorry.

This was a rethoretical question: of course I assumed you'd answer "obviously not" as anyone sane would. It was a general "you", not a personal "you". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I replaced you by "anyone" to clarify in the quoted post.

 

[Blue Orange]

Indeed. The cultural divide doesn't work only one way (with people ignoring the idiosyncracies of WotC's main market), but also the other way round. Someone telling "all Nazi are evil, there is no distinction to make among them" in a village where soldiers were forcibly enlisted in units that committed war crimes and put on jobs related to crimes against humanity, and those who refused had their family executed is bound to elicit a... mixed reaction, even 70 years later. Yet I am pretty sure everyone on this board who ever posted "all nazi are evil" didn't do it with the intent to hurt but out of ignorance of this particular situation and was hurtful without intent to do so. While I concur with your conclusion, it would also be useful to contextualize the grievance to help others to understand why some topic are deemed problematic.

FWIW, I had some great-uncles on the other side of that, and I'm well aware the Nazis hated Poles almost as much as they hated Jews. (They were willing to keep some Poles around as a slave race.) Which is why I don't really jump into the Pole-bashing, Kielce notwithstanding. Are those Nazis, though, or some schlub dragged away from his kielbasa to shoot my great-uncle or his own family would be shot? I mean, to be a Nazi I think you actually had to join the party, not just be some random dude from Berlin who turned 18 at the wrong time. Even back at the Nuremberg trials one of the big things that determined whether you got the death penalty was whether you joined the SS.

I can think of only one actual non-evil Nazi: Oskar Schindler. (Though there are probably other, less prominent, cases.)

 

[Umbran]

Well you went and read it! I dint think that’s what’s normally expected. More like glance at it and “yea go team!”

Well, the irony in this case is rather rich.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Click the Unwatch button at the top of the page and then you won't get notifications for the thread unless someone likes a comment or quotes you. But then, even if you are banned from the thread, you will still see those anyway. And Unwatching vs Banning means you can at least pop back in and refute a comment, if someone massively misrepresents you.

this is the issue. I have tried 'unwatch' before on threads more gaming related with arguments. I have even have gone so far as to say don't tag or quote me and I wont post again in the thread... and pages later still been dragged in with what I see as misrepresentations and attacks.