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

[TwoSix]

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

If you changed "psionics" to "clerical magic", that would be a fundamental change to the Dark Sun concept. If you can "slaves" to "serfs with no real opportunity to escape their life of subsistence farming from land owned by the sorcerer-kings", that barely impacts the way Dark Sun is presented. I've seen no evidence that trying to free the slaves was a common driver of Dark Sun campaigns in either 2e or 4e.

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

I don't think either of us have any particularly strong evidence for our viewpoints. Your viewpoint seems to be that WotC must keep all previously published details about a setting as close to their previous presentation as possible, or fans of that previous work will become angry. I think that viewpoint lacks a lot of nuance.

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

Hence our pages and pages of forum speculation!

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?

You mean the one (1) time I did it? I thought you were being overly broad in your use of fans to indicate those who are attached to previous implementations. You can be a fan of something and still happy to see some parts jettisoned and other parts changed.

 

[Mercurius]

A couple things from the last few pages.

One, I'm not sure why every new setting (or revived classic setting) must be "core rules." If anything, I think each setting is an opportunity to illustrate how the D&D rules are more of a toolbox to draw from, rather than a receptacle for every aspect of the rules.

If every setting must include every aspect of the rules, then every setting ends up feeling somewhat similar. Diversity and uniqueness are ironed out, at least a bit.

That said, I think you could present Greyhawk (for example) in its classic form, and then have an appendix in which there are guidelines on how to include other elements (e.g. dragonborn) if you so desire. But it is a best of both worlds: preserve the original vibe, but provide options for those who want to play it with all the bells and whistles of 5E D&D.

As for Dark Sun, I'm not sure why slavery being a presence is such a huge deal. I mean, most premodern societies had slavery, and slavery still exists today in various forms. Furthermore, Dark Sun is a post-apocalyptic, dark fantasy setting, and slavery fits the overall theme. Its inclusion isn't a glorification of it - it is considered and evil to be overcome, if I remember correctly. I mean, isn't that a major aspect of playing D&D, at least for most? Righting wrongs, fighting evil?

Is the problem that slavery is an "adult theme" and WotC wants every setting to be kid-friendly? The books say "12+"...is it that slavery is too mature of a theme for a 12-year old? That doesn't seem to jive with a lot of other dark themes in other settings and adventures.

Someone used the term "off-putting." That's a tricky beast, because a lot of things can be off-putting to a number of people. My experience growing up was that D&D was a good way to explore different themes, even darker themes, in a safe environment.

 

[TwoSix]

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

Sure, and the sorcerer-kings are still terrible and need to be overthrown even if WotC changes the legal status of the subsistence farmers around the city.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Indeed. They even explicitly tried to make the one major tiefling NPC fit into the setting (by tying her to Iuz), and it still got some grumbling. Now imagine doing that on a setting-wide scale.

Which was stupid. Greyhawk has always had people of fiendish descent in the Empire of Iuz and the Great Kingdom. By definition they were tieflings, but they weren't called tieflings since the term hadn't been invented yet. But if you actually call them tieflings, some people get upset. Eye-rolling pedantry...

 

[Greg Benage]

As for Dark Sun, I'm not sure why slavery being a presence is such a huge deal.

The best arguments I've heard include:

1. Encountering slavery is hurtful and traumatizing to people, including already marginalized people.
2. You're not going to get an authentic examination of the human misery and suffering caused by slavery in D&D, and publishing a "sanitized" slavery regime is a bad look.

Paizo has stated they aren't excising references to slavery from already published works, but they won't have any stories that reference slavery going forward. I'd be surprised if Wizards takes a different approach.

 

[overgeeked]

If you changed "psionics" to "clerical magic", that would be a fundamental change to the Dark Sun concept.

Sure. Agreed.

If you can "slaves" to "serfs with no real opportunity to escape their life of subsistence farming from land owned by the sorcerer-kings", that barely impacts the way Dark Sun is presented.

Except...you know...the myriad of ways serfdom is wildly and drastically different than slavery. That's the point. Those two things are not "close enough" to each other. They're fundamentally different things.

I've seen no evidence that trying to free the slaves was a common driver of Dark Sun campaigns in either 2e or 4e.

Well, other than...you know...all the stuff in the setting material and adventures about it. The main novel series was literally centered on that. In 4E WotC wrote up a list of the eight characteristics of Athas. #2 was heavy on slavery. Right after "the world is a desert." Before listing the scarcity of metal, defiler magic, sorcerer-kings, city-states, how everything is trying to kill you, and how familiar races are different here. Must be pretty central to the themes of Dark Sun to be listed above all of that.

They also explicitly call out anyone living in cities as directly benefiting from slavery.

"City dwellers enjoy more security than do nomads or villagers living in the deserts, but it takes legions of workers—most of them slaves toiling in the fields to support a city’s population."

I get that you don't care if it's changed. And that's cool. But you're acknowledging that it is a big part of the setting and that it should be changed going forward.

I don't think either of us have any particularly strong evidence for our viewpoints.

Literally reading any of the Dark Sun material published to date will show you that slavery is a big part of the setting.

Your viewpoint seems to be that WotC must keep all previously published details about a setting as close to their previous presentation as possible, or fans of that previous work will become angry.

Not really, no. It's their IP, they're clearly free to do whatever they want with it, including nothing. Historical precedent suggests that fans of a thing want it to be updated in the rules, but not the lore or feel, tone, etc. Look at Ravenloft. Some fans loved the update, some hated it. Look at the changes made to FR in every edition of the game...some fans loved the updates, some hated it. Look at any setting that's carried forward at all. You have fans split on the changes made. Some Greyhawk fans are still salty about changes made from the original folio. Yes, fans really like the details. I get that you don't care about the details. But a lot of other people do.

I think that viewpoint lacks a lot of nuance.

Funny. You're the one advocating for taking a wider view and ignoring the details.

You mean the one (1) time I did it? I thought you were being overly broad in your use of fans to indicate those who are attached to previous implementations. You can be a fan of something and still happy to see some parts jettisoned and other parts changed.

Ah. Too right. It's just the once you put fans in scare quotes. I was lumping in the bit where you said fans who disagreed with you weren't worth considering.

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.

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

 

[overgeeked]

The best arguments I've heard include:

1. Encountering slavery is hurtful and traumatizing to people, including already marginalized people.
2. You're not going to get an authentic examination of the human misery and suffering caused by slavery in D&D, and publishing a "sanitized" slavery regime is a bad look.

Paizo has stated they aren't excising references to slavery from already published works, but they won't have any stories that reference slavery going forward. I'd be surprised if Wizards takes a different approach.

And there it is.

You can't do Dark Sun without doing 1 or 2.

Having Dark Sun be true to the original will cause problems, see #1.

Changing Dark Sun will get called out as white washing the setting, see #2.

WotC basically cannot win with Dark Sun. No matter what they do, it's going to be a problem. Far easier to simply ignore it. Unless they go wild and really dig into the slavery aspect. Hire historians and consultants who are experts on it and really push the slavery sucks let's end it once and for all angle. Which would likely be called out as exploitation or misery porn.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

It's not broken, so you don't need to fix it, just bring in some folks to polish it. Doing a new Al Qadim when you could just up date the old one Wil just anger FR fans, and it would be less prestigious then doing an FR continient. Seriously it's really not that hard. It's an award winning setting. They have the man for the job now and the freelancers for it as well. They do it, no one is going to be able to complain about it.

No.

Here is the description of Al-Qadim's contents on Wikipedia;

Arabian Adventures offers over 40 pages of player character kits, including the sha'ir, barber-thieves, beggar-thieves, and other rogues, as well as other characteristically Arabian roles such as merchants, moralistic priests, hakimas (wise women), mystics, mamluks, corsairs, and elemental wizards. Each kit includes benefits, hindrances, and discussion of the kit's societal role in the desert of Zakhara, the Land of Fate.[1] The rulebook also includes rules for calling upon Fate, the Evil Eye, and discussions of honor, piety, the salt bond, and other characteristics of Arabian society.[1] The rulebook offers a comprehensive list of desert equipment, lists of spells with a desert motif, Arab character names, and proficiencies like Haggling and Display Weapon Prowess.[1]

I won't say this is as awful as Oriental Empires (because that is really bad), but this is not good. And the simplest answer I can say for not doing Al-Qadim, is simply that Jeff Grubb, who is not Arabian, wrote it. That's not a knock against Grubb who is an excellent designer, but the fact is that even if he did research on the product, he's going to write something with inherent biases/stereotypes.

I mean, here's one review that was written Allen Varney (and this review was written back in the 1990s, by another non-Arabian!)

The "lack of Arabian flavor may derive partly from the uneasy relationship between the Arabian Nights adventures and standard AD&D rules. It's hard enough justifying elves and dwarves in this setting, and there's a worse lack. The Al-Qadim campaign accepts slavery and polygamy as facts of life, and dispassionately discusses the ways of holy slayers, but it never dares hint at that ultimate taboo of all AD&D campaign worlds, monotheism. We must presume that developing a fantasy equivalent of Allah would offend Muslims, whereas compromising Islamic culture with a polytheistic hodgepodge is just fine. No doubt TSR also wished to avoid unpleasant links to the modern Islamic world in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War."

So IMO, make a new setting, don't bother updating this stuff. If you make the necessary changes to fix it, it'll make FR fans made. So don't bother, make something new.

I'll add, I'm super confident that the D&D team, who now work with great creators like Ajit George, probably agree with the "don't bother, full do-over" on this.

 

[overgeeked]

And the simplest answer I can say for not doing Al-Qadim, is simply that Jeff Grubb, who is not Arabian, wrote it. That's not a knock against Grubb who is an excellent designer, but the fact is that even if he did research on the product, he's going to write something with inherent biases/stereotypes.

Sure. And while I mostly agree, I'm not as hard line about it as you. I don't think a non-Arab is incapable of writing an Arabian-themed setting, but it would certainly help make it better to have more people involved who're actually knowledgeable about the culture involved than...what...zero. If nothing else, WotC could simply hire the folks who put out Campaign Guide: Zakhara.

So IMO, make a new setting, don't bother updating this stuff. If you make the necessary changes to fix it, it'll make FR fans mad. So don't bother, make something new.

I'm torn on that one. I want both, honestly. I want an updated Al-Qadim that's not dripping with racist stereotypes but I also want new settings that draw from non-European cultures.

I'll add, I'm super confident that the D&D team, who now work with great creators like Ajit George, probably agree with the "don't bother, full do-over" on this.

I'm really hoping one of the two new settings is something India-themed. Such a rich culture and history to draw from.

 

[Parmandur]

Cake to ignore though, just don't put it in the book. It was a common theme in old fantasy back in the day so an understandable carry over but yes, I even winced at that back when I got my Red & Gold Greyhawk box.

Yeah, for sure: partly an advantage if the Setting being a light touch on details. Easy to change.