More Dark SUn tidbits by Rich Baker

[doctorhook]

Okay, what's the difference between the Campaign Guide and the Campaign Setting? I'm presuming it's the same book, renamed and with different art. That seems odd, but one never knows.

I'm confuzzled.

I agree, and assume it's an error.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Okay, what's the difference between the Campaign Guide and the Campaign Setting? I'm presuming it's the same book, renamed and with different art. That seems odd, but one never knows.

I'm confuzzled.

Campaign Guide is just DM information, no player content (for the most part), the Player's Guide handles all player information. This is very good because all of the juicy secrets are only in the CG, thus generally only available to the DM.

Campaign Setting is a combination of the CG and PG, thus removing some of the redundancy, but also making all of the secrets of the campaign setting known to the players, since they own the book. This is a very bad combination, it was in 3e/3.5e, it is now. Especially when WotC has went to great lengths to split DM and Player content. They appear to be making a huge step backward here.

BTW, if you read the product blurb on their site, this is definitely not a error.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I like that Dark Sun gets its own creature catalogue, but I don't understand why WoTC couldn't just increase the page count by 16 pages and make it a hardcover. What I really dislike, however, the cover of the Campaign Setting book. I remember when they unveiled the cover of (what was supposed to be) the Campaign Guide at Gen Con. It was amazing, and gave a great glimpse into a strange and foreign world. The new cover of the Campaign Setting book is as bland and meh as the cover of the Player's Handbook. Great artwork is really important when it comes to giving readers (especially those new to Dark Sun) inspiration and a good impression of what the Dark Sun world is like. An example of artwork that gives an excellent depiction of the campaign world, is the first chapter-opening in the Eberron Campaign Guide (the warforged hanging from the flying ship, closing in on a lightning rail from the air). Since Dark Sun is so different from vanilla settings like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, the art work is even more important. There is also extra pressure on Dark Sun art because of Brom's legacy. His artwork was incredible, and really got my creative juices flowing. The picture of the Belgoi, mentioned earlier, is a great example. I seem to remember WoTC saying (at Gen Con maybe?) that they would try to get Brom to contribute, but that he was very busy, etc etc.

 

[Mark Hope]

I thought the city being free was one of the Revised changes that everyone hated?

No, it happened in the very first product that came out after the first boxed set (Freedom). It was also heavily foreshadowed in the first boxed set itself under the writeup for Tyr, where it goes on about Kalak being about to fall and the slaves being the ones who are going to do it. Written into the setting from the ground floor. Not surprising at all that they're going with it for 4e as well if they are planning (as stated) to stick to the flavour of the original box.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

WTH, Tyr had best not be free unless it's part of an adventure path, as I *despise* the idea of "democracy" on Athas, unless the players do it, ugh. Even then it doesn't fit, because "democracy" as an ideal, well, lets just say it doesn't come out of a vacuum!!

People on Athas *like* overlords, why? see history and social dynamics of even today: folk LOVE having a tyrant, if he's a tyrant that keeps most folk well off, safe, runs things smart, and most "folks of quality" are not harassed. Many people do not want all the work they have to do, to support successful Democracies. Much easier for them to let a tyrant run things...

Kalak maybe a tyrant, but his city works and is relatively safe. Elves and mages are convenient scapegoats, and the threat of the monsters of the wastes are NOT some bullcrap "Eurasia/Eastasia boogeyman for the masses", as the wastelands are full of horrors that are real threats.
Hey, given the choice between Kalak and his templars' tyranny, or belgoi eating your family etc...!!

So, I hope this "Free Tyr" is *only* due to a an adventure, or possible outcome of only the PC's actions, nothing else. A "Free Tyr" would make a mockery of the whole of Dark SuUn, for pity's ake, ugh.

If you want a "free starting place" for PCs well that's always bloody been there, there's NEVER been a need for a "Free Tyr".
Why? "Slave villages" (ex-slaves etc), trading forts/towns etc that the sorceror kings grasp is light or non-existant due to the necessities of trade and distance, or homebrewed "Hidden towns", Underdark folk who've escaped by going "morlock", and so forth.

anyway looking forward to 4th ed Dark Sun, but a free city does NOT belong in Athas (or at leats the Tablelands), except by direct action of PCs.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

If that is true, queue rabid DS fans complaining.

Rabid fans nothing, this is something most DS fans, regardless of their "rabid-ness" disliked.

It's also something WotC expressedly stated would not happen.

...So hey!

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

IMO the best solution would be a Player's Guide and a Campaign Guide with monsters included. Add a few short stories if you think the page count is too low for the Player's Guide, as that's an excellent way for first-time Dark Sun players to get a feel for the world. It worked for me with the short story in the original box . And I wouldn't mind a 300+ page Campaign Guide .

I just don't see the need to have a separate Creature Catalog.

 

[Jack99]

Yeah, it's definitely a pity if they have chosen to eliminate the DM/player division of books. I like it as it has been so far. Now, this is completely anecdotal, but it has definitely increased significantly the amount of books my players have bought (compared to the last edition), so unless we are the odd duck out, it makes little sense.

 

[Mark Hope]

Rabid fans nothing, this is something most DS fans, regardless of their "rabid-ness" disliked.

It's also something WotC expressedly stated would not happen.

...So hey!

WotC said they wouldn't have Kalak overthrown? Where did they say that? And I really doubt you've spoken to "most" DS fans.

Kalak maybe a tyrant, but his city works and is relatively safe. Elves and mages are convenient scapegoats, and the threat of the monsters of the wastes are NOT some bullcrap "Eurasia/Eastasia boogeyman for the masses", as the wastelands are full of horrors that are real threats.
Hey, given the choice between Kalak and his templars' tyranny, or belgoi eating your family etc...!!

Well, that's something of a false dilemma. Going by the original DS material, Kalak's Tyr most emphatically did not work. The treasury was bankrupt, the iron mines were floundering and then closed down. The templarate and nobles were plotting against Kalak himself, and Kalak had all but abandoned rulership in favour of building his ziggurat in preparation for killing all of his citizens. Revolution in Tyr was written into the setting from the get-go.

And when it happened, things got worse. Not better. Riots. Starvation. Lynch mobs. Corruption. War. Factions turning on each other. That's the way to portray post-Kalak Tyr. Not as some hippy-dippy "Age of Heroes" utopia with Preservers out in the open. But as a fractured, decaying wreck, turning on itself in the absence of a strong overlord. If you want to continue the real-world analogies that DS got so much use out of, take a look at post-Tito Yugoslavia, or even post-Saddam Iraq, where the absence of a dictator opens a can of barely-surpressed tensions between rival groups of citizens.

If WotC can pull that off as a portrayal of Tyr, I say it will play directly into the DS flavour. Sure, they might just go for the "Sadira and Rikus and Agis have saved us all, yay!" approach, like later DS material did. But the earlier stuff got the tone right imho. Riots, bloodshed and unfettered rivalries ftw!

So, I hope this "Free Tyr" is *only* due to a an adventure, or possible outcome of only the PC's actions, nothing else. A "Free Tyr" would make a mockery of the whole of Dark SuUn, for pity's ake, ugh.

The whole of Dark Sun? Now you're just being silly.

If you want a "free starting place" for PCs well that's always bloody been there, there's NEVER been a need for a "Free Tyr".
Why? "Slave villages" (ex-slaves etc), trading forts/towns etc that the sorceror kings grasp is light or non-existant due to the necessities of trade and distance, or homebrewed "Hidden towns", Underdark folk who've escaped by going "morlock", and so forth.

anyway looking forward to 4th ed Dark Sun, but a free city does NOT belong in Athas (or at leats the Tablelands), except by direct action of PCs.

Agree with this completely. Whatever happens to Tyr, the PCs should be involved. Biggest flaw in Freedom was having the PCs be bystanders to the NPCs. Let the PCs get the Heartwood Spear and stick it to the old kank.

Or just use Nibenay as the home city. By far the coolest city in the Tablelands anyway .

 

[Shroomy]

I thought that most people objected to what happened to Tyr not because of what happened to Tyr, but because of the way TSR depicted it in the adventures (that the NPCs from the novels did it "off-screen"). Am I misremembering?

The decision to not separate the CS and PG tells me that there is not enough player's material to justify a separate book and that a lot of the player-orientated content will be explicitly optional and up to the DM to use (which makes sense IMO, since its the setting that deviates most from the baseline 4e experience).