D&D 5E Dark Sun, problematic content, and 5E…

[Reynard]

Yeah. It was surreal when that particular "firestorm" hit. Like, lol. Clearly some people haven't been paying attention.

"Rage Against the Machine is my favorite band." -- Paul Ryan, operator of the Machine.

 

[Irlo]

I voted yes. I'll add that I think it's acceptable to include problematic content even if it's not explicitly evil and meant to be fought. And what I mean by that, of course, is that some problematic content is acceptable to some people in some contexts. I wouldn't want to decide for everyone what's acceptable. And publishers will of course make their own decisions, and customers will let the publishers know what they think of those decisions.

In a particular home campaign, I included a decadent ruling class of elves that were cut off from the natural world and relied on strange, addictive alchemical concoctions to induce their trance and maintain their long life spans. It's fantasy substance abuse, not glamorized by any means but also not meant to be fought by PCs. I would understand concerns that it trivialized the real world effects of substance abuse, and I would never include this in a game involving my young teen or anyone who struggled with addiction (or anyone else whose gaming experience would be adversely affected by its inclusion). I would be shocked if WotC included anything similar in their products, and I would not be surprised at all if you could point out to me 3PP D&D examples of just that sort of thing.

With regard to slavery, I agree with Vaalingrade that it's over-used in published materials and I can completely understand folks who don't want to see it in their gaming materials.

For anyone concerned that the removal of problematic material from a 5E reboot of Dark Sun would leave a bland, uninteresting campaign world ... well, I see that point, but I don't see what's interesting about rebooting a 30 year-old IP in the first place. Something new, please?

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's been a long time since I've played DS, but couldn't a character actually be a slave?

I haven't read the books in a while, but I'm absolutely sure that is an option.

Well the OP does say it's "obviously, explicitly evil"... but if it's Evil, then for it to be socially-acceptable in the setting, then is mostly everyone Evil? The whole question makes my head spin, and that's not even including trying to separate the academic hypothetical from the sensitivities of folks in the community.

That gets a bit in how you view alignment (oh man, how people judge what "lawful" means...) but yes. I had a middle-schooler basically come to that exact answer ("Oh, so they're evil") while watching an older grog in the party struggle a bit with it that it made me laugh. But I think, yes, it kind of would, wouldn't it? Or at least at the lower-end of Neutral.

And yeah, it creates a whole bunch of problems and conundrums. Serfdom does kind of offer some simpler solutions, especially without the cultural sensitivity problems.

You say "no" as the referee. I have plenty of times.

Sure, but some people won't, and I don't think Wizards wants to get stories about people coming to a game and finding people interacting in the setting because "Well, it's not evil in the setting!" or something like that. Similarly I think when you have such an outrageous evil being committed, many players are going to feel like the entire game is going to be about eliminating that institutional system and will have problems interacting with other things while that still exists.

In this case, I'd probably take the lesson Paizo learned the hard way (For a long time you could buy slaves in Society play, which... f*** me that is just bad) and just change things to serfdom, which is functionally similar while not carrying the same problematic baggage. It's also just more sensible in general, I think. And those who want slaves and think their tables can interface with that can simply change it back.

One of my favorite memes of all time is someone angrily tweeting about Wolfenstein turning "woke" because of a black female protagonist.

I think the funniest one was someone getting angry that they were talking about "punching Nazis".

 

[Irlo]

The answer's in the question. I'm asking gamers their thoughts. You know, the people who would potentially adopt, accept, and buy the product. That's the point of the poll.

In light of this clarification, I'll respond a bit differently. I have a high tolerance for problematic content in gaming materials that's not cringe-inducing and presented well, and I'm very critical about what "presented well" means. At the same time, I wouldn't expect my players to have the same tolerences, so inclusion of those materials in publications would certainly affect by purchasing decisions.

I've been known to buy stuff without intending to use it, but these days that's rare for me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

In light of this clarification, I'll respond a bit differently. I have a high tolerance for problematic content in gaming materials that's not cringe-inducing and presented well, and I'm very critical about what "presented well" means. At the same time, I wouldn't expect my players to have the same tolerences, so inclusion of those materials in publications would certainly affect by purchasing decisions.

I've been known to buy stuff without intending to use it, but these days that's rare for me.

Also it's worth noting that when you are creating a product for mass consumption, you have to be a bit more careful. What some tables can handle, others won't. There's obviously a lot of subjectivity there, but stuff like slavery is definitely a riskier thing to put in there.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

I guess when Dark Sun was published the internet age hasn't arrived yet. Theorically in the most of groups the players are "legal people" and the we shouldn't worry...... but in the internet age the toxic players could cause a lot of troubles.

Today there is a new generation of roleplayers who used to be the "bad guys" in games as World of Darkness.

Dark Sun is maybe the most dangerous setting, and not only about survival, but because there is not punishment in the afterlife for the bad guys. If the players wanted to be the bad guys, they would be fighting not to save the world, but to become the new tyrants, and with their own harem of concubine slaves.

It shouldn't be too problematic, until the moment when the toxic players appear.

 

[Emoshin]

That gets a bit in how you view alignment (oh man, how people judge what "lawful" means...) but yes. I had a middle-schooler basically come to that exact answer ("Oh, so they're evil") while watching an older grog in the party struggle a bit with it that it made me laugh. But I think, yes, it kind of would, wouldn't it?

Oh when I wrote "the whole question makes my head spin", I meant trying to see all sides of the OP's question, with all the ambiguity in all the words. For the question of slavery = evil in the fiction, I would say yes, but I generally don't bother going there. You know, Aristotle, the celebrated philosopher, defended slavery; he genuinely didn't think it was evil. In D&D, if you don't know that slavery is evil, and you spent your whole life praying to Pelor, being 100% certain you're go to the Seven Heavens, but when you die, you end up in Hell, and the devil is like "Yep, slavery is Evil" and you're like "why did nobody just cast detect evil on me when I was alive"? (at least in 3rd edition) -- it gets pretty ridiculous pretty quickly.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Are you asking what's acceptable in terms of ideas and themes you choose include at your table in your personal home game, or what is advisable for WotC to put in an official product? Because those are very different questions.

That's where I stand. It is absolutely possible to make a campaign (or even published campaign setting) where Real World Evil(tm) is front and center in a game, either as a backdrop or as the main antagonist element to be addressed. That doesn't mean that there is a 'win' situation for WotC in producing such a game world (especially one like DS, which has existing expectations, and was not initially framed as being exclusively about trying to address the RWE in the setting). Doubly so since they will be under incredible scrutiny to both 1) not be seen as being soft on said evils or implying that the PCs should ignore said evil, and 2) not change the setting in any meaningful way. Even if they thread the needle next-to-perfectly, I don't see the sales numbers for such a product* exceeding even a miniscule fraction of players slowing their general purchasing of D&D products due to discomfort with the game (/frustration with a DS product which does not live up to the purchaser's individual vision).
*which honestly I think is less universally appealing than we 90s-or-previous-gamers might want to believe. It's 'D&D, Mad-Max version,' but I think if you didn't grow up with it, it runs the risk of looking half-grim&gritty and half-edgelordish, and among new players the grim&gritty fans will hate it for being edgy and the edgy fans will hate it for being grim&gritty.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Oh when I wrote "the whole question makes my head spin", I meant trying to see all sides of the OP's question, with all the ambiguity in all the words. For the question of slavery = evil in the fiction, I would say yes, but I generally don't bother going there. You know, Aristotle, the celebrated philosopher, defended slavery; he genuinely didn't think it was evil. In D&D, if you don't know that slavery is evil, and you spent your whole life praying to Pelor, being 100% certain you're go to the Seven Heavens, but when you die, you end up in Hell, and the devil is like "Yep, slavery is Evil" and you're like "why did nobody just cast detect evil on me when I was alive"? (at least in 3rd edition) -- it gets pretty ridiculous pretty quickly.

No, I understood what you meant. We're cool.

 

[Xamnam]

Acceptable for it to exist, somewhere, period? Sure.

A good idea for WotC, as a big tent name in the field, to put their brand behind? Not likely. Especially if you want to avoid the American History X issue.

Something I'm likely to buy, or be interested in? Almost certainly not, unless it is done extraordinarily well, in a compelling way, that is vital what is being presented, and even then I don't have a group that I would be confident in presenting it to.