It's Dark Sun

[Logan_Bonner]

What about fluff? Fluff must prevail!

Hey, there will be great fluff, too! You just already know what most of it is!

 

[DEFCON 1]

Now here's the question I'd like to ask all the Dark Sun fans and DMs out there with regards to how best to address the races / classes issue.

If I remember correctly... because there were no gods to speak of, there were no clerics or paladins or divine characters of any sort in the original setting. So which of these methods do you think WotC should use to address this issue:

1) Identify and list all the races and classes that are found within Dark Sun and not mention the ones that aren't, or...

2) Identify and list all the races and classes that are found within Dark Sun and specifically say 'the following races and classes do not appear within the Dark Sun Campaign World and should not be used'?

The first point is more confusing for new players or entrants into the setting, because you give no indication why these races and classes are not listed (and basically making DMs guess as to their potential use or non-use). However, you are leaving things open-ended so that a DM could include them if he wanted, and WotC doesn't have to run the risk of telling players 'hey, you're doing it wrong'.

The second point is more true to the setting that has been established, and more in line with focusing on the very specific fluff that has made the setting as successful and popular as its been. However, it does basically say to the DMs 'tell your players NO' on these issues, and it strips away whole chunks of the game (along with the corresponding potential book sales and miniature sales of anything divine-related or non-DS race related for example). Which might not be something WotC wants to get in the habit of doing.

***

Now if either of these two options doesn't seem like the way you'd want to go, there are the third and foruth options:

3) Mention that everything in D&D could find a place within the setting, but that some parts should be exceedingly rare and would be an extremely big deal if they did appear (basically, the 'every race can have a dragonmark' concept).

4) Include everything that is in D&D into the Dark Sun setting, and just retcon and/or refluff things as necessary to make them stay somewhat within the realm of the original fluff (the Realms or Eberron methodology).

The third choice puts the onus onto the DM to decide whether or not to say 'no', as well as potentially having to steer his campaign into a direction where the 'obscure' bits that players want have to end up being a focus. If tieflings are potentially unheard of in Dark Sun, and one of his players wants to play one, the DM now has to decide whether this million-to-one event has to be considered an important part of his game.

And as far as the fourth option... it solves pretty much everything as far as WotC's concerned, because it keeps everything they've created still in play, and means they have to spend less space in their books giving explanations for 'no', instead of space for all the 'yes's. The downside of course is potentially alienating their long-time Dark Sun fans who feel like their setting got destroyed because of this continued WotC reasoning that 'everything in D&D should have a place in everything else connected to D&D'.

***

I myself have no good answers to this... but I'm curious what others feel about it. This will be the first setting they'll produce in 4E where huge chunks of the game had originally been "written out" of the setting the first time, and where they'll really have to decide whether or not to do that again. Should be interesting.

 

[Knightfall]

I expect you'll see them, but I expect they'll be intensely modified, flavor-wise. I don't think WotC is going to release a setting which says "YOU MAY NOT PLAY A GNOME" nowadays. I think they might say "Gnomes are intensely unusual on Athas. You might be the only one. Also, you eat people" or something like that.

You're probably right.

I think 4e Paladins can fit very well into Dark Sun. It wasn't the class that didn't work for 2e; it was the Lawful-Goodness of the class. At least IMO. An Unaligned paladin serving Primordials could work decently well. So just because 2e DS had no Paladins doesn't mean 4e DS shouldn't; a 4e paladin is not a 2e paladin.

You know, this just goes to show I don't know much about 4e. I don't have any of the core books, so I'll have to take your word on it.

I think the DS version of Bard is very well-served by both the new Assassin class (as previewed), and the existing 4e Rogue. Whether or not there will be a place for the PHB2 arcane leader called the "Bard" remains to be seen. Again, just because the poison/assasin/minstrel character was called a Bard under 2e doesn't mean a character filling the same niche in 4e must also be called a Bard.

Well, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you on this point.

I wouldn't hold my breath for a base Dune Trader class. It'd be cool, but I dunno. I think there should be a Dune Trader paragon path, though.

-O

I could live with a Paragon Path.

Note that I'm not a fan of 4e at all. I haven't seen anything that makes me think it's the kind of game I want to DM. I'm not I'd even want to play in a 4e campaign.

More than likely, I'd buy the campaign guide to use with an earlier edition or maybe another system completely. Hmm... Grim Tales Dark Sun.

 

[Obryn]

As someone who has basically no exposure to the Dark Sun setting, what is the big deal with races? How does it break the setting to have all the 4e races as playable?

I don't think 4e races would break the setting, if they are re-flavored in appropriate ways.

Basically, Dark Sun took the familiar D&D races (except for gnomes and half-orcs, which were all dead) and made them hardcore. Elves were nomadic dune runners, sprinting across the sand in herds and preying upon travellers. Dwarves were completely bald, very strong, and chose a focus to devote their lives towards. Halflings lived across the mountains in cannibalistic tribes. It added Muls, which are half-dwarves bred for slavery; Half-Giants, who had flexible alignments and were often guards; and thri-kreen, who were the perfect desert survivors.

Later revisions added pteranodon-people and "dray" - basically dragonborn. I think maybe aarakocra, too.

Mainly, it was the wildlife that was weird and bizarre. Everything was based on insects or lizards; everything that wasn't an insect or lizard was horrifyingly mutated and dangerous. Kanks were the most regular riding animals - basically giant ants who secrete honey. Caravan-beasts were huge "dinosaurs" - either big imixes or even bigger frog/turtle Mekillots.

Weird weapons abound, metal was nowhere, and wearing armor was a death sentence. The world was concentrated in small cities ruled by magical/psionic sorcerer-kings.

Yeah, it's a neat setting.

 

[fba827]

I noticed the (visible) upcoming releases only mention a D.S. Campaign Guide and not a D.S. Player's Guide. I wonder if it simply hasn't been announced, was left out of the visible upcoming releases, or if they won't really have any players guide since all the options would have already been presented, and everything is presented in one book with both flavor, history, and class features/adjustments?

 

[Nebulous]

Yeah, it's a neat setting.

Word. It was just so NOT typical fantasy.

 

[Squizzle]

I'm a fan of Dark Sun too. However I liked the expanded setting as presented in the Revised DS campaign setting box set. So I'm coming for a different perspective on that there, and on top of that I'm more than a bit cynical about the stated desire to avoid pushing 4e default material into Dark Sun when other statements openly talk about the 4e primordials being part of 4e DS.

Maybe my worry is overstated, believe me, I would like nothing more than to be totally and completely off-base here and have 4e Dark Sun come off as ten flavors of awesome, just using 4e rules alongside well written flavor that's respectful to the original. We'll see. I want to be wrong here, but my inner FR fan keeps having flashbacks.

You know that nothing will ever take away the Dark Sun you love, right? They can publish a book making the Tablelands a lesser-known suburb of Waterdeep, and you don't need to care. If you have a setting that you love, just ignore anything that comes after that you don't. You don't need to pin it down under glass; others might want to see more options or exploration (and even expansion) of possibilities.

Heck, from your comments in other places, I was utterly convinced that you don't play current-edition D&D, so I'm not sure why you'd care, at all.

 

[Dausuul]

Funny thing, a lot of the 4E-original races fit Dark Sun much better than the races that are already in it.

Think about it for a minute. Set aside what you know about Dark Sun and imagine you're talking about a new setting: A desert world ravaged by magic and full of horrifying mutated monsters, nearly devoid of natural resources such as metal and water, without gods, where life is a daily struggle for survival.

So I put this question to you: Which fits better in this setting? A race of graceful, beautiful archers? Or a race of tough reptilian humanoids?

I submit that dragonborn are far more natural to DS than elves.

 

[Nork]

Dark Sun warforged would actually be pretty cool IMO.

Constructs of obsidian, stone, and bone plates affixed to a skeleton of living wood from beyond the mountains. Animated by powerful defiling dragon magic, and made sentient by the unfathomable psionic powers of the Sorcerer Kings.

Obsidian souled enforcers bound to a Sorcerer King's iron will, the warforged do not tire, do not thirst, do not hunger, and do not question. Whether standing guard upon the walls of the city state under the crushing mid day sun, or stalking the deserts for life to enslave, the Warforged obey the will of their Sorcerer King...

But what happens when their Sorcerer King dies? What is their will then?

Being resistant to environmental effects in exchange for being about as lovable and trustworthy as a rogue T-800 seems like a fair trade. Especially in a world as trustless as Dark Sun.

 

[fanboy2000]

I noticed the (visible) upcoming releases only mention a D.S. Campaign Guide and not a D.S. Player's Guide. I wonder if it simply hasn't been announced, was left out of the visible upcoming releases, or if they won't really have any players guide since all the options would have already been presented, and everything is presented in one book with both flavor, history, and class features/adjustments?

I noticed that too. I suspect that many DS races and classes will be in the PHB3. But I think they'll want to a player's guide to include DS specific feats and paragon paths.