Christopher Perkins posted a blog today to talk about moving forward from the Spelljammer incident. It also includes errata for Spelljammer. An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.

I'm glad they're going to be running all products by independent cultural consultants, now.

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.

 I think this only applies for spelljammer games where one player takes one of the spelljammer backgrounds. This is not a general new thing. Similar to the Theros Supernatural Gift or Van Richten Dark Gifts

I’ll be honest, I’m more than a little alarmed that Wizards of the Coast previously hadn’t been using sensitivity readers and consultants for their products unless the Product Lead intervened.

Quote from Enrif >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.

 I think this only applies for spelljammer games where one player takes one of the spelljammer backgrounds. This is not a general new thing. Similar to the Theros Supernatural Gift or Van Richten Dark Gifts

 I agree it reads that way, but in a spelljammer campaign in particular, it really seems like added confusion. If the party spelljams over to Eberron, and my character dies, is my new one a spelljammer (who gets the feat) or an eberron character (who doesn't). It's pretty tough to draw boxes around different campaign worlds, when the whole basis for the system is traveling to different campaign worlds.

Also, it seems like the Dragonlance backgrounds are giving feats, and we know 1D&D is giving everyone a feat. and, as you say, Theros and Ravenloft. They should just bite the bullet and say everyone gets one. Let us just go crazy for the next two years until the new edition drops.

Quote from Myastan_Torinn >>

I’ll be honest, I’m more than a little alarmed that Wizards of the Coast previously hadn’t been using sensitivity readers and consultants for their products unless the Product Lead intervened.

 Yes.

And the way it was written, saying we have a really diverse workforce, but we don't want to ask them to do it, makes me wonder if that's what they had been doing. Like "Hey, there's that black guy in accounting, let's go ask him if this is OK."

But, credit where it's due. They're learning from their mistakes and trying to be better.

Currently, backgrounds granting a Feat should be exclusive to the 6e playtest one d&d.
As a DM I will ban those backgrounds from any 5e D&D group I DM for and make 5e compatible replacement backgrounds that do not give a feat.

I consider removing and not replacing the Hadozee lore and art to be equivalent to canceling culture, which to me is very offensive.

I view Wizards of the Coast's sameness direction for D&D to be anti-diversity.
The acceptance of differences promotes diversity, and the removal of differences is an exclusion of diversity.

Oh, here we go again🙄

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts>>

I consider removing and not replacing the Hadozee lore and art to be equivalent to canceling culture, which to me is very offensive.

This doesn't make sense. Removing hurtful things is not canceling anything.

I view Wizards of the Coast's sameness direction for D&D to be anti-diversity.
The acceptance of differences promotes diversity, and the removal of differences is an exclusion of diversity.

... what are you even talking about? It feels like you're trying to exploit tolerance to mandate the inclusion of intolerance. That's textbook Paradox of Tolerance. You can't justify the inclusion hurtful things based on a desire for tolerance.

Quote from Myastan_Torinn >>

I’ll be honest, I’m more than a little alarmed that Wizards of the Coast previously hadn’t been using sensitivity readers and consultants for their products unless the Product Lead intervened.

Right? I mean we all knew that after reading the Hadozee lore, but yeah this confirms it. I'm glad they're fixing it.

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

Currently, backgrounds granting a Feat should be exclusive to the 6e playtest one d&d.
As a DM I will ban those backgrounds from any 5e D&D group I DM for and make 5e compatible replacement backgrounds that do not give a feat.

 

I mean, I guess it's practice for when you'll have to do it again for Dragonlance.

Not going to respond to the rest of the post.

Quote from Enrif >>

Quote from Ophidimancer >>

An interesting result of that errata is that all Backgrounds officially grant the Magic Initiate, Tough, or Skilled Feat if they don't already grant a Feat.

 I think this only applies for spelljammer games where one player takes one of the spelljammer backgrounds. This is not a general new thing. Similar to the Theros Supernatural Gift or Van Richten Dark Gifts

 
No, they’re future proofing since the 1DD Background builder automatically includes a feat with every background.

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

I consider removing and not replacing the Hadozee lore and art to be equivalent to canceling culture, which to me is very offensive.

I view Wizards of the Coast's sameness direction for D&D to be anti-diversity.
The acceptance of differences promotes diversity, and the removal of differences is an exclusion of diversity.

This isn't a matter for debate; the D&D community spoke up and spoke to Wizards of the Coast and said "This is problematic and harmful. This hurts us the community. This is regurgitation of the harm we have experienced" and they were correct. This is not "cancelling culture" because it's not real, it's not culture, it's a fiction for a fantasy game. What is real is the voices of the people that have too long been made to be silent, the voices that Wizards of the Coast are listening to. "Acceptance" of harmful content does not promote diversity, it promotes hate. These changes are not "anti-diversity", they are pro-doing better, they are pro-listening, they are pro-paying attention to those long ignored.

These changes are the right direction and the moderation team will broker no compromise on that. If you disagree, then you may take your disagreement to one of the many corners of the internet where people who disagree with listening to marginalised people, who disagree with being accountable for the harm they have caused, who disagree with the idea that there exists more than their narrow view of the world gather. Because it's not welcome here.

D&D is for everybody and these are the steps that are being taken to ensure that.

And just so this is crystal clear, I am speaking as a moderator on this matter.

Call me cynical here; but I can't help but notice that the "learning from SPelljammer" was mostly restricted to "some people were offended by some of our art" and NOT "the books were content-short shells of what they ought to have been."

I think the plan laid out is a great outline and hope it holds true to the ideas in which it was created. The plan has sources of redundancy as well as still lets creators create. I hope that the creators when having a creation "edited" or removed do not necessarily see any negative actions. Having said that I do think that at times repeated editing for similar content ideas should be required.

All in all it looks like a A+ to me and I hope it works that way in real life.     

My expectation for 5e Spelljammer was space travel and to travel across the D&D multiverse to other Crystal Sphere aka other settings.
.
What we have been giving is, spelljammers can only travel through Material Plane space and across the Astral Plane. 

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

My expectation for 5e Spelljammer was space travel and to travel across the D&D multiverse to other Crystal Sphere aka other settings.
.
What we have been giving is, spelljammers can only travel through Material Plane space and across the Astral Plane. 

And the Astral Plane is the medium that the different settings can be found in. You can travel from Realmspace to Doomspace to Xaryxis Space through 5e Spelljammer. Just instead of the Phlogiston, 5e uses the Astral Sea. 

You would know this if you actually read the book. 

Quote from FinalKingdomHearts >>

Currently, backgrounds granting a Feat should be exclusive to the 6e playtest one d&d.
As a DM I will ban those backgrounds from any 5e D&D group I DM for and make 5e compatible replacement backgrounds that do not give a feat.

 

 
5e already has official books with backgrounds giving a feat in Strixhaven. It is the popularity of that along with "bonus starting feat" houserules which prompted this direction in Spelljammer, Dragonlance and One D&D.

And overall it is a step backwards. Previous editions, notable 3rd/3.5, had all characters begin with a feat and humans getting 2. It was something fans missed and WotC are realising that which is why they're bringing it back. 

But you do you. I'm just glad I'll never have you as a DM. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Let's keep things on topic please. This thread was started to discuss the recent article from Wizards of the Coasts about their improved sensitivity process. The article makes no mention of mechanical design of the game, be it in Spelljammer or any other product. If you wish to discuss such things, please make a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum

Thank you

It has been highlighted the OP wasn't just discussing the topic of Wizards of the Coasts new sensitivity practices, but also the errata itself.

While that places both themes on-topic for this discussion, based on the title alone I would strongly recommend if users wish to discuss the errata, a new thread (for clarities sake) would be advisable.

This is not "cancel culture." People throw this around like its a new thing that young progressives invented. It's only the term that's new. In the 90's it was called political correctness or "PC." I'm sure it's had other names over the centuries, but all it really means is that actions have consequences.

Owning up to those consequences and making an effort to do better in the future is normal, healthy human behavior that we learn in kindergarden. The idea that it's some kind of radical political movement was put forward by people who never had to face the consequences of their actions and take great offense in the idea that they might have to.