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

[overgeeked]

When you are demanding what material Wizards of the Coast...

Good thing I'm not doing that. That's not what the thread is about. It's about asking gamers about their stance on objectionable content. That's all. It's directly tied to Dark Sun and WotC's decision not to publish, sure. But there's no demand that they do anything.

From the point of view of people who do find the subject matter objectionable, they're perfectly free to find you personally objectionable as well -- and say so. Free speech and all that...

Of course, having the freedom to say something (or publish it) also entails the freedom to keep your mouth shut (or not publish) if you feel that there's more downside to saying it than not.

Sure. It's a bit ridiculous to assume that someone who watches serial killer shows and movies must therefore be a serial killer though.

And that would be great in a society where power distribution is equal... otherwise some people's free speech isn't really equal to others is it?

Exactly. And we should fix that. You don't fix that by limiting speech.

You however also seem to have a problem that WotC chose the route that they did... if you're an advocate for true freedom of speech that also means being ok with someone choosing not to speak (publish).

I'd rather they would publish it, but it's their call to make. At no point have I said otherwise.

They weren't censored

I never said they were.

they made a choice and you seem unwilling to accept it.

No. I've accepted it. I wanted to poll the gamers here on how they view objectionable content in games. It's directly tied to WotC's decision, but it's not a veiled demand that they publish anything. It's an honest question as per the poll.

 

[Haplo781]

I meant that along with WotC's precedent of releasing the campaign setting IP's on DM's Guild. Again my point being WotC wouldn't control what others chose to publish for it... IP wise or rules wise.

WotC can and will remove products from DM's Guild for violating standards. I dunno what you're talking about.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I've read the thread and ok, let's get down to specifics. Everyone seems to be keeping pretty high altitude, but, I want to really pin down what we mean here.

So, @overgeeked, your premise is that it is acceptable to include problematic elements so long as it's presented as something to be fought against. Fair enough. Let's run with that.

In the first scene of our campaign, several slave children are being torn to death by goblins in a public square for edification of the onlookers who are taking bets on which slave child will die first. You are all 1st level PC's and if you try to intervene, the local guards will kill you. Sure, you might be able to come back in a few levels, but, you cannot possibly help these people.​

This would be acceptable in a D&D sourcebook published by WotC? Obviously not.

See, this is the problem right here. You want to include the "problematic material" but then run into the whole PG 13 version of the world that D&D and WotC presents. Which means any "problematic material" will always be whitewashed and sanitized. The horrors of slavery will never actually be on screen. The horrors of these various "problematic materials" cannot actually be added to the game.

And, let's be honest here, that example I wrote above is a very, very minor horror compared to the actual horrors of slavery. Or genocide. Or any other "problematic content".

So, no, I strongly oppose the idea that just because it's "something to fight" that using things like slavery or whatnot, is somehow something that WotC should be using as adventure ideas for the game. If you want to do that with your table, go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you. But, for WotC to try to deal with it in such a way that it's acceptable to millions of people? Not a chance.

Right to the extreme? Bad form.

What people are saying is stuff like "The slave pens in the Drow stronghold." The "Halfling slave serving the Orc King his mead." Or even "The slave trade is brisk in Bigtown City." Stuff bad people and bad societies deal with and something for the Heroes to possibly deal with.

And yes, sometimes its TOO BIG. You're heroes even at level 20 might not be able to convince the people of Bigtown City that having a slave market is bad.

The best third party adventure I ran for 5E had a major town who had slavery as big business. And the heroes wanted to stop it. So the Rogue snuck in and poisoned the wine of the biggest slave trader in town. What happened? Someone else took over his business.

This added flavor to the town. The PCs didn't like this town. They hated even more when they had to actively fight to save the innocent civilians who lived in the town. BUT after the BIG FIGHT and town leadership changed hands cracks started to appear in the long standing slave trade. The problem wasn't fixed at that moment but the heroes had made a change that was being exploited and epilogue stuff indicated things did change after many many years.

It was a a great game and story and it involved a horrible societal issue.

People aren't asking to have fun watching children fight each other they just don't want one less injustice to fight against.

Why not get rid of sacrificial victims? Drug trade/Use? Marauding bands of murderers? Thievery and the black market. Suicide. I've known people (including myself) in real life that have been drug abusers, had things stolen, had their lives taken etc. Yet I don't ask WotC to cater to me (not that any of that bothers me in a game context). If they do make a product I don't like I simply wont buy it.

Its all moot though. WotC's going to do what causes the least issue while maximizing profit. And making heist adventures is more palpable than freeing the oppressed from the ravaging hordes atm.

 

[Zehnseiter]

Do I think the premiere ttrpg company that is the gateway for 99% of the hobby should have a major setting where slavery is accepted as the status quo, a major part of it's themes and can be used however any particular group wants... no, not really... it sounds like a landmine field waiting for one wrong move... and I understand why WotC doesn;t want to tackle it.

Was it a landmine in the previous two incarnations of the setting ?

For the record: Dark Suns message was never"slavery is accepted". The message was "It is evil and your characters fight against it". The status quo gets killed by the very first adventure and the first novel that was released for the setting. And there is a string of follow up adventures that hammer that message home again and again.

Yes you can remove slavery for the setting but then don't you also lose something by doing that ? You lose the message "Slavery is evil and you need to fight against it." A message that is still relevant today as modern slavery exists and it is a evil that continues to happen in the real world..

In the end it is just a fantasy setting for D&D. But back then when I was a young boy it was a pretty good message. Might have teached me something.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have a question what else is an option for making a setting with human evil feel evil not that it is not problematic but are we in a situation where we could make sword and sorcery better or not?

as it might just be me but I kinda fail at coming up with mortal evil which is not problomatic save sci fi stuff thus we have a problem.
how do you make less problematic evil?

and by nature dnd needs evil otherwise you can't do adventuring unless you want to be the evil.

and role playing fantasy harvest moon does not feel like it would sell to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Was it a landmine in the previous two incarnations of the setting ?

People didn't care about people who were bothered by slavery back then. We've evolved.

 

[nevin]

Was it a landmine in the previous two incarnations of the setting ?

For the record: Dark Suns message was never"slavery is accepted". The message was "It is evil and your characters fight against it". The status quo gets killed by the very first adventure and the first novel that was released for the setting. And there is a string of follow up adventures that hammer that message home again and again.

Yes you can remove slavery for the setting but then don't you also lose something by doing that ? You lose the message "Slavery is evil and you need to fight against it." A message that is still relevant today as modern slavery exists and it is a evil that continues to happen in the real world..

In the end it is just a fantasy setting for D&D. But back then when I was a young boy it was a pretty good message. Might have teached me something.

this is true. The entire setting was about fighting the Dragon Kings who'd enslaved most of the habitable Athas.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Technically, feats are an opt-in element. They are just really popular, so loads of folks opt-in.

PHB: "This chapter defines two optional sets of rules for customizing your character: multiclassing and feats."

Stuff you put in the PH will  always feel more "opt-out" than stuff you put literally anywhere else. That makes a real difference to a lot of people.

 

[nevin]

stuff was opt -in in 3rd edition the tide has been moving steadily towards everything WOTC says is cannon and DM's have to fight thier players to opt-out. I think that's why we have bigger fights over smaller things these days.

 

[Imaro]

Was it a landmine in the previous two incarnations of the setting ?

Different times. Were attribute bonuses based on gender a landmine in the previous edition of the game? The Orcs in Orcs of Thar? Oriental Adventures?

For the record: Dark Suns message was never"slavery is accepted". The message was "It is evil and your characters fight against it". The status quo gets killed by the very first adventure and the first novel that was released for the setting. And there is a string of follow up adventures that hammer that message home again and again.

What percentage of DM's run official adventures? Also was it really that cut and dry since Templars were a character option?

Yes you can remove slavery for the setting but then don't you also lose something by doing that ? You lose the message "Slavery is evil and you need to fight against it." A message that is still relevant today as modern slavery exists and it is a evil that continues to happen in the real world..

My point is slavery isn't evil in the setting it is the status quo. In a game that had objective alignment there were those who owned slaves and were not of an evil alignment.

In the end it is just a fantasy setting for D&D. But back then when I was a young boy it was a pretty good message. Might have teached me something.

And back then when I was younger I happily ran it and even had players who bought slaves (that they eventually freed but not automatically) but guess what I'm older now and I am much more aware, especially in America, of the effect slavery had not only on the society but on my people as a whole and I don't find it funny, something great for game fodder in the hands of pre-teens who may not grasp the seriousness of it to others (though reading through this thread has me side-eyeing some of the old guard as well) or a company like NuTSR...