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.

 

[Minigiant]

Fans? If those things are deal breakers for someone I can't imagine they were ever a fan of Dark Sun. And that's okay. Not every game is for every individual.

Fans of D&D.

Because WOTC would need to create more DS fans to hit the sales numbers it wants. There aren't enough Fans of OS and 4e Dark Sun to sell enough books to make WOTC happy. And changing it for potential fans will lose many old fans.

 

[Yaarel]

While I liked Earth, Air, Fire, and Water at the time, in retrospect I'm not a fan of how it gave elemental clerics more of an ecological focus. I can see it being a thing for some clerics, particularly clerics of earth (if they identify the element more with soil than stone or sand) and water, but not really for air or fire clerics. I liked clerics potentially being of all sorts of alignments, and I liked fire being identified with the sun rather than Sun being a para-element.

I am fond of the elemental aechetypes of Earth, Water, Air, and Fire.

At the same time, the way these happen is generally as Soil, Lake, Wind, and Sunlight.

(Here Water as Lake includes rain, river, sea.)

Plant combines every element.

 

[Yaarel]

If I were to implement preserve/defile in 5e, I would do them as Background feats.

Actually, most players would take a Background feat that granted a psionic ability.

Some arcane characters might instead choose a defiling feat that granted a temporary spellslot when destroying Water via the destruction of plant life - as well as a granting a deathly Shadow necrotic feature.

Oppositely, the preserving feat would actually create new Water, while making plantlife flourish - as well as granting a lifegiving Fey healing feature, including the ability to learn the Cure Wounds spell and Revivify spell.

 

[MGibster]

Fans of D&D.

Why do you describe it as shoving? If someone said Thirsty Sword Lesbians shoved LGBTQ+ characters in our faces we'd laugh at them. Just don't buy it if you're not into it. Nothing is or has been shoved in anyone's face.

ecause WOTC would need to create more DS fans to hit the sales numbers it wants. There aren't enough Fans of OS and 4e Dark Sun to sell enough books to make WOTC happy. And changing it for potential fans will lose many old fans.

I'm already on record as saying I wouldn't publish a new Dark Sun if I were WotC. And in other threads, maybe even this one, I've voiced my opinion that they should just move on and do something different. DS had its chance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Make an absolute statement... I'm going to call you on it. I see you didn't really answer my question though.

So I'm either a liar or a monster? Thanks. Way to stimulate conversation.

For the record, I don't see enough value in that rule to care to keep it. It is in very rare company in that regard.

Don't worry, I'm sure you can find some other verbal trap to catch folks on.

 

[Maxperson]

It's focus by Omission.
Dark Sun cuts so much out that more attention will go on what is left.

You literally can't have a focus by omission. A focus is something central to the setting. It's simply not a focus of the setting in any way.

If Mul is one of the few races allowed, you are shoving slavery, forced breeding, and slurs in the fan's face.

It exists as one of several races, not few.

In 2e we have human, dwarf, elf, half-giant, halfling, mul and thri-kreen. However, if we look at the Dark Sun language list we see aarakocra, genie(so genasi), gith(githyanki and githzerai), kenku and yuan-ti which 5e could place into Dark Sun without changing anything.

That's 16 choices for what race to play and only 1 of them is mul. It's not in your face at all and is very easily ignored, and very easily gotten rid of without changing what the mul is.

 

[Maxperson]

Or you just, you know, hang back from the rest of the group (the way casters usually tend to) so that way the initiative penalty only affects bad guys who close in with intent to kill you.

My God! I'd kill to have a magic-user that stupid. In a world as deadly as Dark Sun having a armorless, soft and juicy low hit point character separated from the pack is serving dinner up to the predators. By the time he and the party are aware of many of the threats, they'd need a cleric to raise the poor sap.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So I'm either a liar or a monster? Thanks. Way to stimulate conversation.

Dude. You're the one that made the absolute statement (that you've stubbornly had for a while now) of "removing things bad, adding things good". Someone challenging that position in asking about a morally problematic example is not a personal attack on you. It's challenging your absolutist, unnuanced position.

And, as @Imaro pointed out, "I didn't use that rule in the first place, and don't see people asking for it to be put back in" isn't a good answer to why they were asking that question. Saying "what about removing a sexist rule" in response to "it's bad to remove optional things" is a valid critique of your stance. If you see that as a personal attack . . . that was on you, not the questioner.

(And, "for the record" I have seen people in 5e discussion boards asking for sex-based ability scores to be added back in the game. There have been a couple of threads about it on other sites. There are definitely people that want it back in the game. They're a minority, but they exist.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Dude. You're the one that made the absolute statement (that you've stubbornly had for a while now) of "removing things bad, adding things good". Someone challenging that position in asking about a morally problematic example is not a personal attack on you. It's challenging your absolutist, unnuanced position.

And, as @Imaro pointed out, "I didn't use that rule in the first place, and don't see people asking for it to be put back in" isn't a good answer to why they were asking that question. Saying "what about removing a sexist rule" in response to "it's bad to remove optional things" is a valid critique of your stance. If you see that as a personal attack . . . that was on you, not the questioner.

(And, "for the record" I have seen people in 5e discussion boards asking for sex-based ability scores to be added back in the game. There have been a couple of threads about it on other sites. There are definitely people that want it back in the game. They're a minority, but they exist.)

Just because I haven't seen something of course doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I can only go by my own experiences. I still think its bad to remove things, in (almost) every circumstance. That includes the kind of content under discussion here. Let people decide what they want to engage with.

And yes, I believe @Imaro was trying to get me to admit an exception to my stance specifically to weaken my position rhetorically. It's a cheap shot.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just because I haven't seen something of course doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but I can only go by my own experiences. I still think its bad to remove things, in (almost) every circumstance. That includes the kind of content under discussion here. Let people decide what they want to engage with.

Okay? Now you've "experienced" me telling you that actually, there are some people that want them added back in. And, as @Imaro was showing you, your position is flawed, because "removing things bad, adding things good" is not nuanced enough to incorporate situations where it would be morally problematic to include things.

And yes, I believe @Imaro was trying to get me to admit an exception to my stance specifically to weaken my position rhetorically. It's a cheap shot.

No. It's not. It's fairly pointing out a flaw in an absolutist position. And trying to hint that maybe you should amend your position to incorporate the flaws they pointed out with it.

If your position is so flawed that a single question can prove its flaws, it deserves to be "shot down".