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

 

[darjr]

Wait wait.

I think it is completely valid to call out, for instance, H.P. Lovecrafts racism.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It didn’t have consultants so much as Japanese folks who were asked to read it. I think.

Nothing like a consultant of today.

They were neither readers nor consultants, but closer to what we would consider "playtesters," who were thanked "for critiquing and improving the manuscript on short notice."

I've often remarked that it is a shame that no one has tracked down these five Japanese individuals and gotten some feedback from them about their experience.


ETA- Masataka Ohta, Akira Saito, Hiroyasu Kurose, Takafumi Sakurai, and Yuka Tat-ishi.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Wait wait.

I think it is completely valid to call out, for instance, H.P. Lovecrafts racism.

Indeed. Removing racism from the stories, so that it is absent from newer editions, is bad, however. Much better to include a foreword explaining the racists underpinning of some of H.P. Lovecraft's theme, contextualizing to separate it from the "average racism and eugenism of 20's America" from what where his own ideas. It is especially useful if some of the racists underpinning are becoming more diffcult to identify to modern readers.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Indeed. Removing racism from the stories, so that it is absent from newer editions, is bad, however. Much better to include a foreword explaining the racists underpinning of some of H.P. Lovecraft's theme, contextualizing to separate it from the "average racism of 20's America" from what where his own ideas. It is especially useful if some of the racists underpinning are becoming more diffcult to identify to modern readers.

Um, I agree with you for the most part.

Except for the separating if from the "average racism of 20s America{.}" I've discussed this a little bit before, but I think we tend to give a pass to how racist America actually was in the 1920s by saying that Lovecraft's racism (which was nasty and virulent) was actually that much worse.

It was just better documented. Unlike many in that time, Lovecraft did not appear to act out in a violent fashion to enforce his racism. So ... yeah.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Wait wait.

I think it is completely valid to call out, for instance, H.P. Lovecrafts racism.

Yeah, there is a clear difference between 'that word became a slur later' and trying to use 'a product of their time' to excuse bigotry.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wait wait.

I think it is completely valid to call out, for instance, H.P. Lovecrafts racism.

like everything there is a complexity to it... but the TLDR is that he was racists even for the early 1900's... not a monster by any means, but most assuredly if you knew him and had 1920's sensibilities you would know him to be racist.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Indeed. Removing racism from the stories, so that it is absent from newer editions, is bad, however. Much better to include a foreword explaining the racists underpinning of some of H.P. Lovecraft's theme, contextualizing to separate it from the "average racism and eugenism of 20's America" from what where his own ideas. It is especially useful if some of the racists underpinning are becoming more diffcult to identify to modern readers.

yes reprints with forwards (and maybe trigger warnings) is my preferred way to handle it... I assume by 2100 the same will be true fro harry potter (if they still are intrested)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Um, I agree with you for the most part.

Except for the separating if from the "average racism of 20s America{.}" I've discussed this a little bit before, but I think we tend to give a pass to how racist America actually was in the 1920s by saying that Lovecraft's racism (which was nasty and virulent) was actually that much worse.

That's what I got from reading articles about H.P. Lovecraft's racism: that he was even called out for that in his time, so he stood out as racist among a background where racism was much more tolerated intellectually. And eugenism was considered a healthy scientific approach. Not that the rest of the world was better, with for example the theory that one could predict criminal behaviour by looking at the various bumps on one's head...

When I wrote earlier that I can't feel to belong to the same culture as the same one but that happened 100 years ago, it is another example of that. Sure, nowadays I can say : "hey I would have opposed that". But if I was born 100 years before, being told by respectable figures like politicians, university teachers and so on that behaviour X was desirable, and that I had no opportunity to be confronted to another point of view, there is a strong chance I'd have been a different person and thought X was actually desirable.

It was just better documented. Unlike many in that time, Lovecraft did not appear to act out in a violent fashion to enforce his racism. So ... yeah.

Yep.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Um, I agree with you for the most part.

Except for the separating if from the "average racism of 20s America{.}" I've discussed this a little bit before, but I think we tend to give a pass to how racist America actually was in the 1920s by saying that Lovecraft's racism (which was nasty and virulent) was actually that much worse.

It was just better documented. Unlike many in that time, Lovecraft did not appear to act out in a violent fashion to enforce his racism. So ... yeah.

yup like I said it is complicated. I could teach a college level class just on how to dissect what he was... but the quick dirty form is he was more racists then average in a time when we would consider a progressive to be VERY racists today, but he wasn't a monster who was out physically harming people... (also his own backstory explains some of it and he did by accounts get better as he became more worldly... but better is a small comfort still racisit)

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

yes reprints with forwards (and maybe trigger warnings) is my preferred way to handle it... I assume by 2100 the same will be true fro harry potter (if they still are intrested)

Err, I thought JK Rowlings was called out for something that didn't appear in her books? Is there something egregious in the stories themselves? (You might want to answer in private if this is susceptible to derail the thread).

Edit: or did you mean to include a blurb explaining that people have actually been discriminated on blood purity so the 2100 crowd will be able to understand the context?