D&D 5E Further Future D&D Product Speculation

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean, when you think about it, slavery and serfdom are both systems of exploitation and oppression.

I think it's been discussed quite a lot academically that there are basically gradations of slavery, with chattel slavery as the most extreme and horrifying (unfortunately the original DS focuses on this via Muls etc.), and serfdom isn't even one of the least-awful kinds of slavery, it's kind of in the middle (fr'ex some historians regard the Helots of Sparta as "serfs" rather than straightforward slaves, and yeah, they didn't have a great time). It's definitely essentially a form of slavery given you're born into it and can't go "Okay I'm leaving!". I think the problems around using slavery in fiction largely relate to chattel slavery, but you can get almost all the same setting impact with just a vaguely realistic portrayal of serfdom. I still remember how shocked I was to learn about serfdom in medieval Japan, and saying "But that's basically slavery!" and then looking at Western Medieval serfdom and going "Oh wow it was basically the same in the West, if not worse...". I was kind of annoyed with various history teachers who had basically sold this idea of medieval peasants as "free" and "serfs" as like "just a name".

 

[DavyGreenwind]

It was the early '90s rather than the '80s, and I think there was stuff that was a bit more academic than pure pop-culture behind it (though still very much Western perceptions I'm sure), but yeah, that makes sense to me. Starting over rather than updating some other guy's outdated take on the culture (which might mean being locked into a lot of dodgy stuff).

Oh yeah, 90's. And I'm not mad at TSR or Jeff Grub or anything. I think it was overall a good job at making a setting. I would just leave it in the past.

 

[overgeeked]

I’m not seeing the difficulty.

Of course not.

Either you leave in the slavery and have overthrowing the current order as a possible focus of play…

Right. As I said. But WotC won’t do that because it would mean publishing a setting where slavery is a defining characteristic.

or you gloss over it and make the lower class more of an “oppressed serf” type, leaving slavery mentions for gladiator types.

Or you fundamentally change the setting, which would make a lot of fans skip any products.

Anyone who says “It’s not really Dark Sun without rampant slavery” isn’t a part of the fan base worth worrying about.

So anyone who actually read or engaged with the setting at all aren’t “worth worrying about.” Got it.

 

[TwoSix]

Of course not.

Because I don't think it's there.

Right. As I said. But WotC won’t do that because it would mean publishing a setting where slavery is a defining characteristic.

We have no evidence that WotC won't do that. At best, you're extrapolating from a very small number of existing points of evidence.

Or you fundamentally change the setting, which would make a lot of fans skip any products.

I think the number of "fans" who would skip the setting over that element is much smaller than you're presupposing. You can disagree, of course, but we're both just guessing.

I also simply don't feel it's as instrumental to the setting as you're suggesting.

So anyone who actually read or engaged with the setting at all aren’t “worth worrying about.” Got it.

I'm somone one who has read or engaged with the setting. I'm also an advocate for IP owners not to be overly precious about "protecting" their IP. Settings are fundamentally about invoking tropes, not the details.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Or you fundamentally change the setting, which would make a lot of fans skip any products.

Whether that's true or not re: fans skipping if you change the setting, I think there's an open question as to how much of the potential audience would even really know/care, because how many of them even have played DS or care out the specifics re: chattel slavery vs. serfdom/indentured servitude?

Only 11% of D&D players are over 40. Only 15% are 35-39. You'd probably have to be either over 40 or pushing 40 to have played 2E Dark Sun at this point. And 4E Dark Sun definitely did not have many people play it, given it was a late product for a short-lived edition (I also have no idea how prominent slavery was in it - less prominent than 2E I dare guess).

So at most we're maybe talking 25% of the market even having played DS (and probably much lower). And how many have strong opinions on chattel slavery being vital to the setting? Half? A quarter? Less? How many equally see an actual psionicist class as vital to the setting? I'm going to guess that's a lot HIGHER than the number who demand chattel slavery.

If we can do DS without a dedicated psion/psionicist class (and it seems most people feel we can, even among grogs), we can do it without chattel slavery, because we're really talking about a very small percentage of the potential market. The majority of people buying Spelljammer will not have played Spelljammer, which was last cool in like, 1990. But they'll have heard it was cool. The same applies with Dark Sun. Things people who've never played get excited about in Dark Sun are Half-Giants, Thri-Kreen, Sorcerer Kings, Psionics, Brom's art, Desert Survival, Weird Materials for Stuff, Planetary Romance, No Gods. They're not "chattel slavery!". That's like, so far down the list.

So TLDR is it's not going to matter now. Yeah that might have been fatal if it was 3E and most people picking up DS were existing DS fans and so on, but now? Nah.

 

[overgeeked]

Because I don't think it's there.

You don't see why WotC might not want to publish a setting where slavery is a center piece? Okay.

We have no evidence that WotC won't do that. At best, you're extrapolating from a very small number of existing points of evidence.

Well, their aversion to anything that could even be slightly off-putting to modern fans.

I think the number of "fans" who would skip the setting over that element is much smaller than you're presupposing.

It's weird how you keep putting fans in scare quotes. Why are you doing that?

I also simply don't feel it's as instrumental to the setting as you're suggesting.

Even as recently as 4E WotC saw it as instrumental to the setting. Which is why it featured prominently in the eight characteristics of Athas and was mentioned several times in the setting book, monster book, and adventure.

I'm someone one who has read or engaged with the setting. I'm also an advocate for IP owners not to be overly precious about "protecting" their IP. Settings are fundamentally about invoking tropes, not the details.

I'd suggest you have a drastically different view of this than most fans of any property. Just looking at all the furor over changes to even minor things in beloved settings. Take the recent Krynn UAs as just one example. People were up in arms over the kender being fey and having things magically appear in their pockets...rather than being kleptomaniacs. So much so that WotC did a rather quick about face on that particular detail.

 

[TwoSix]

You don't see why WotC might not want to publish a setting where slavery is a center piece? Okay.

I'm saying that slavery is not a fundamental centerpiece of Dark Sun, and most people who are fans of earlier incarnations don't view it as central.

I acknowledge this as an assertion without any particular evidence behind it other than anecdotal observations. I'm happy to say this is merely an opinion, and I'm comfortable with letting things play out and seeing which of our views are correct in the long run.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm saying that slavery is not a fundamental centerpiece of Dark Sun

That's certainly an opinion to have. Not one borne out by any of the setting material published to date, but sure. Why not.

and most people who are fans of earlier incarnations don't view it as central.

I acknowledge this as an assertion without any particular evidence behind it other than anecdotal observations.

Yeah, that's clearly not something you have any way of knowing without a survey mechanism on par with WotC's.

I'm happy to say this is merely an opinion, and I'm comfortable with letting things play out and seeing which of our views are correct in the long run.

That's the rub isn't it. There's literally no way of knowing without doing a massive survey or WotC publishing the setting.

Still, I would like an answer to this question. It's weird how you keep putting fans in scare quotes. Why are you doing that?

 

[teitan]

Yup, we saw with with Tieflings and Dragonborn in Ghosts of Saltmash. Greyhawk is a core rules setting, but when it was current, tieflings and dragonborn where not part of the core rules. Thus, you either have to change the setting so it's not core rules, or change the setting to include everything that is in the current core rules. It simply not possible to change nothing.

If that is people’s issue then it’s a non-issue. It’s a weaksauce issue because if they don’t like it it’s easily ignored and changed. It’s make believe, just say “not a Dragonborn” and change it.

 

[teitan]

I’m not seeing the difficulty. Either you leave in the slavery and have overthrowing the current order as a possible focus of play, or you gloss over it and make the lower class more of an “oppressed serf” type, leaving slavery mentions for gladiator types.

Anyone who says “It’s not really Dark Sun without rampant slavery” isn’t a part of the fan base worth worrying about.

It was the focus of play in the original, overthrowing the Sorceror Kings.