D&D 5E WotC: Why Dark Sun Hasn't Been Revived

In an interview with YouTuber 'Bob the Worldbuilder', WotC's Kyle Brink explained why the classic Dark Sun setting has not yet seen light of day in the D&D 5E era.

I’ll be frank here, the Dark Sun setting is problematic in a lot of ways. And that’s the main reason we haven’t come back to it. We know it’s got a huge fan following and we have standards today that make it extraordinarily hard to be true to the source material and also meet our ethical and inclusion standards... We know there’s love out there for it and god we would love to make those people happy, and also we gotta be responsible.

You can listen to the clip here.

 

[Reynard]

They explicitly said they couldn't do it because they couldn't find a way to square the setting with their current content standards without compromising what fans liked about it. Sounds like both a moral  and an economic stance.

Their content standards aren't based on moral calculus, they are based on economic calculus.

 

[wellis]

I think the sad part is, there would be people or players who would cause a tempest in a teapot via criticizing Dark Sun because of some grim theme or how harsh everything is and so on, and understandably WotC/Hasbro don't want to deal with that.

Social media has actively made it easier for players to police other players.

In addition, considering the lower quality and output of their lore lately, a 5e Dark Sun by WotC probably would be heavily watered down.

So in the end, I actually this is a win-win for both WotC and players.

Players don't have to deal with a Dark Sun horribly watered down, bith to make it safe for those players who focus on policing other players and because WotC has been cutting back, and WotC/Hasbro doesn't have to deal with the stress of someone on Twitter or Facebook or Tumblr or wherever finding something objectionable and whipping up an outrage mob.

 

[Minigiant]

That's not what people are saying here. They are saying "I want to see some X type of questionable content, and I demand you make it even though it will likely hurt your business!" It's like people complaining that modern Star Wars video games don't have rampant lightsaber dismemberment. Bloody limbs flying off storm troopers is something that would hurt sales so they don't do it.

If you don't like it, make your own Dark Sun, with black jack and hookers. And since it is D&D -- YOU CAN.

Exactly.

Pre2010 Dark Sun wouldn't make enough money for WOTC to attempt it and deal with the work and backlash.

It's like making a musical or western movie as a summer blockbuster. Not gonna happen unless you are a genius. More likely to flop. Some things are about timing.

The pendulum might swing where it could work. But it's not today.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

The parents are who have to teach children to respect the human dignity and to use the good sense, and the entertaiment industry shouldn't dare to take the opposite the parents want for their children.

When I was a little child I watched old petlum movies with gladiators, slaves, and some time a Christian martyr being killed in the circus.

If we ban slavery (in the fiction) for respect towars the people who suffered in the real life time ago... why not to ban pirates also? The coasts of my land suffered attacks by pirates to catch slaves.

Should we ban a module of d20 Modern where the PCs are police who have to arrest a criminal gang of human traffic?

* Other point is the potential risk of PCs becoming ecoterrorists. Or the PCs fight against the warlords, but after these become the new tyrants. Or said with other words. There is a risk DS games to start as "good guy vs evil to save Nature" to fall later into "bad guys vs worse". In DS the people don't worry about to be nice to save their souls in the afterlife.

* Should WotC aplogies if a pictures of Spelljammer showed the scros/space orcs wearing morrions (the helmt used by Spanish conquerors)?

* There should be an opened door for DS but as a no TTRPG product, for example novel, comic, or an animation for adults produced by Paramount Pictures. Here we shouldn't worry about the PCs wanting to buy slaves to create their own harem.

 

[shadowoflameth]

They explicitly said they couldn't do it because they couldn't find a way to square the setting with their current content standards without compromising what fans liked about it. Sounds like both a moral  and an economic stance.

It's true that it's their call as a business, but they seem to think it would be a bad choice for the business even though the setting has been published profitably before in prior editions. Still their call, but if they want to better monetize as they've stated before, they should take a good look and properties that have been successful and that they're hearing demand for.

 

[overgeeked]

That's not what people are saying here. They are saying "I want to see some X type of questionable content, and I demand you make it even though it will likely hurt your business!"

No, it isn't. We're talking about it. I don't see people demanding WotC publish anything. Only openly wondering why. And being told things like:

It's like people complaining that modern Star Wars video games don't have rampant lightsaber dismemberment. Bloody limbs flying off storm troopers is something that would hurt sales so they don't do it.

Which is a cart-before-the-horse assumption. It's not like there's a pile of lightsaber-dismemberment video games with bad sales to point to, where the lightsaber dismemberment is the only unifying factor. It's not a data-driven decision. It's a self-perpetuating assumption.

"We won't publish because sales will be bad...but we can't possibly know how sales will be unless we publish...which we refuse to do because sales will be bad."

If you don't like it, make your own Dark Sun, with black jack and hookers. And since it is D&D -- YOU CAN.

Tell that to the people behind the faux-Dark Sun Kickstarter.

 

[AnotherGuy]

That's not what people are saying here. They are saying "I want to see some X type of questionable content, and I demand you make it even though it will likely hurt your business!"

Nah. The belief is that it won't hurt their business. The belief is that it will likely be more successful (if they actually make a decent sized setting book) than their new setting books.

It's like people complaining that modern Star Wars video games don't have rampant lightsaber dismemberment. Bloody limbs flying off storm troopers is something that would hurt sales so they don't do it.

Once again Logan, Game of Thrones (early seasons), Spartacus (s1), House of Dragon, Deadpool break expectations that sales get"hurt" when we have a little bit of ketchup and dismemberment. The minority who enjoy the Disney settings are just rather loud with their opinions.

If you don't like it, make your own Dark Sun, with black jack and hookers. And since it is D&D -- YOU CAN.

Well that's the mature response.

 

[Reynard]

Nah. The belief is that it won't hurt their business. The belief is that it will likely be more successful (if they actually make a decent sized setting book) than their new setting books.

What's that based on? DS wasn't a particularly successful setting even back in the day. It has its adherents, but it didn't break any records

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Nah…don’t want to sidetrack

 

[AnotherGuy]

What's that based on? DS wasn't a particularly successful setting even back in the day. It has its adherents, but it didn't break any records

So you're saying an old setting with a fan base (however small one perceives it to be) is likely to be less successful than an entirely new setting?

Edit - There is a demand for harder rules, tougher monsters as there is one for cruel settings.