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

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

This reminds me a lot of what D&D has done with it's Medieval European influences in settings like the Forgotten Realms

I did mention Brancalonia up-thread. I think it's good for all groups to get better treatment, such as the Italians behind Brancalonia doing it for themselves.

 

[Morrus]

Yessss. More groveling to the sensitive liberals.

Are you confused? Did you mistake this for the YouTube comments section? Don't post again in this thread, please.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Well, it's publication demonstrate beyond any doubt to naysayers that the inclusivity expressed by WotC isn't censorship (since this book doesn't adhere to the principle they adopted, and yet was published), proving the point of the pro-WotC side, and rejoice their opponents as well, since they will find a game-able setting they might like published. This is really a win-win.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

I did mention Brancalonia up-thread. I think it's good for all groups to get better treatment, such as the Italians behind Brancalonia doing it for themselves.

True, but I wouldn't use a tongue-in-cheek setting (with their first supplement called the Macaronicon) as an exemple of representation.

 

[Argyle King]

Depends entirely on the situation. "Clear and present danger," so to speak. The likelihood of redemption. A currently-violent/dangerous fiend can be redeemed, but the chances are so crushingly slim that, barring the PCs having extraordinary powers at their disposal, it's usually not worth it to try. After all, it's entirely logical to say that fiends can't be redeemed through simply being kind to them and you need to use heavy-duty magic to even give it a shot.

Ditto, an orc raider. Can you capture them safely? Do you have the means to hold the orc while you try to show it a better way? Do you have a reason why it might believe you? Is the orc themself willing to put down their arms when you believe them? And most importantly, if you focus on this orc raider, will the rest of their band then destroy the town?

That being said, I did once run a game (GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, so not quite D&D but close enough) where the PCs decided to start a workshop in order to give goblins and kobolds and the like a job other than banditry. And in a much more recent game, I had a spectator attack the party (as it was being a guard), gave it the ability to summon another spectator (because the spectator would be too-low a CR otherwise), and when the party killed the first spectator, the summoned one asked "Uh, why are we fighting here?" because he had better things to do than get into combat with the PCs and didn't care if the PCs took all the stuff that the first one was guarding. Combat was dragging a bit at this point and I gave the PCs an opening for negotiations--and they took it. The spectator left peacefully.

Thank you for the answer. That was very insightful.

Largely, I agree with what you've posted. That makes sense to me.

I appreciate the examples too.
(Side Note: I enjoy GURPS a lot, so the example used makes a lot of sense to me.)

What I've found unique in the D&D community is that there are two very vocal groups: one which says that nothing should ever be changed and sees no possible way that real people could be offended by content; the other which says that any sentience at all means something cannot be "evil" and that even one person being offended means that something needs to be removed from the game.

It's odd to me that a game based upon a group of people sitting at a table and talking so rarely has a concept of nuance and context within the community.

I suppose this is just a long-winded way of me again saying thank you for an actual response and something resembling a discussion. It's a rare occurrence in regards to certain topics.

 

[Jaeger]

Pretty sure that Greenwood is of European descent.

It's good to know that despite being born and raised on a completely different continent, the mere fact of his genetic European descent imbues him with a natural expertise on all things medieval Europe.

All of Europe is one now so its ok

Evidently this is true, if like Ed Greenwood, you are of European descent.

True, but I wouldn't use a tongue-in-cheek setting (with their first supplement called the Macaronicon) as an example of representation.

They are actually Italian though. Would it not be completely Ok to be tongue-in-cheek with your own culture?

Just like GW with the Empire in the WFRP Old-World setting.

Oh, wait... Seems like GW as a company has a lot of work to do.

Just ignore that last bit.

We have previously established that all of Europe is one now, so it is ok.

After all, “it’s just fantasy”...

 

[Argyle King]

Not the one asked, but I would say the most common scenarios would be:

a) when an honest attempt at negotiations have failed
b) when a violent and awful act is being committed right in front of you
c) when dishonesty is involved and a deal is reneged that could lead to awful things happening
d) when the sapient in question is irredeemable to some degree

Even then, it doesn't have to be to the death - capturing enemies is possible depending on resources.

As with my other response, thank you for an actual answer.

For me, most of those make sense.

'D' is sometimes difficult to quantify in D&D -both due to the game structure itself and due to the contemporary community sending very mixed messages about what's human enough to not be a monster.

'B' and 'C' I can agree with.

I would need more context to a particular situation for 'A.'

 

[Hussar]

And the level of tone deafness is rather breath taking.

 

[Vaalingrade]

False equivalence

No.

It's observing others describing harm, then deciding it's a great idea to loudly declare one doesn't care care as long as the harm done is at a level acceptable to oneself, completely ignoring the very idea that other people are being harmed. And then inexplicably deciding the profit motive will solve the problem.

 

[Vaalingrade]

What I've found unique in the D&D community is that there are two very vocal groups: one which says that nothing should ever be changed and sees no possible way that real people could be offended by content; the other which says that any sentience at all means something cannot be "evil" and that even one person being offended means that something needs to be removed from the game.

This is a depressingly common mischaracterization of everyone involved.