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

[Vaalingrade]

That net is wide enough that TSR didn't create any campaign settings either.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They hired people to create new settings. It doesn't matter if they're permanent or contract employees. WotC wanted new settings, they got writers to do this. I know you don't like WotC. Neither do I. But it's factually wrong to say that WotC has not created new settings.

I suppose I judge setting creativity by the 2e standard at the end of the day. Only a few things WotC has ever done really grabbed me creatively. TSR just has a stronger body of creative work to me than WotC, in aggregate.

I take back my statement that WotC hasn't made settings. But only Eberron really seemed cool and inspired to me. And even then, Eberron is hardly my favorite D&D setting.

 

[Staffan]

Yes, in exactly that way. WotC requested settings from outside the company, and Keith Baker got to publish his world, Eberron, to which he and other have since contributed. He has continued to add more material to it on his own ever since. But he was still an outside contractor, just like Matt Mercer and the folks commissioned for Journeys.

What Wizards bought from Keith Baker with the setting search was a 100-page "setting bible". You might note that the original Eberron campaign setting is a bit bigger than that. WOTC designers (mainly James Wyatt) did a great deal of design on Eberron, and Keith has not been shy to admit it. This is not a situation like with the Forgotten Realms where Ed Greenwood had a setting ready to go (and even so, TSR did a lot of work on it before publishing it).

 

[CapnZapp]

There are a couple of threads on this already, but I wanted to put up a poll and ask a question I had in regards to Kyle Brink’s recent statement about Dark Sun.

Q: Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?

I'm asking because a lot of people object to presenting problematic content at all, even if it's presented as obviously evil and meant to be fought. That somehow the mere presence of problematic content is promoting same or inherently problematic regardless of intent. That even works that decry problematic things are themselves problematic because they include problematic content. Like saying a work decrying the evils of racism is itself racist or promotes racism because it depicts racism. Or saying a work decrying the evils of slavery is itself promoting slavery because it depicts slavery.

The Dark Sun connection should be obvious, so I'll skip the details.

ETA: Apparently I should not have skipped the details. No, this is not a veiled demand that WotC publish Dark Sun. It's an honest question about problematic content in games.

So the question is, I know, incredibly complex. But for the purposes of starting this thread and the poll, I'll keep the options to a simple yes or no.

Q: Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?

Cultural expressions absolutely definitely must remain free from censorship, self or otherwise. Publishing a tabletop roleplaying book is a cultural expression just like writing a book or directing a movie. Some of it should be kid-friendly, and much of it should be respecting modern values, but definitely not all of it.

My personal belief is that we must be able to depict fantasy worlds much less enlightened than our own, without being accused of endorsing those practices.

That specifically includes presenting a world where slavery exists, and I do not mean for the sole purpose of the heroes eradicating it.

Evil needs to be able to exist without there being an expectation that the characters ought to do something about it, or even feel empowered to do something about it.

Anything less would feel deeply deeply unrealistic.

That doesn't mean you need to want to play such content. The proper response to a cultural expression you feel disgusted or offended by is to turn away, not bring out the torches and pitchforks. Not every story must end with all the bad guys dead or in prison. Roleplaying is much much more than what basically amounts to morality tales.

You might not want to play a woman, say, in a Tarantino'ish world set in a parallel seventies (for every Jackie Brown there's a Melanie Ralston, and so on), but you should defend the rights of others to explore that world through role-playing. Without the characters making the problematization of misogyny the cornerstone of the campaign, that is. Yes, misogyny is bad. But we aren't only allowed to play good characters, are we now? Yes, this freedom is likely abused by MAGA types, but that doesn't mean we should take it away from ourselves.

So I can't answer your question because you didn't include the option to answer:

Q: Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?
A: Problematic content absolutely must be acceptable, full stop. We absolutely should be able to explore the full range of human expression through role-playing, just as we are through theater, literature and so on. There should not need to be any morality lesson involved. Heroes must not be required to be shining spotless knights and angels. Worlds doesn't need to be starkly black and white.

 

[pemerton]

I dunno, there's a lot of monsters that don't have a good analogy to any current 5e monster. Although I suppose if you give an existing monster the right psionic spells you can fake it well enough.

That last sentence is right!

That's exactly the sort of thing I've got in mind in saying that, for any given table, Dark Sun 5e is easily doable.

Different tables will do it differently - have their own way of making sorcerers psions, have their own monster versions, etc - but that doesn't seem like a problem to me.

 

[Zardnaar]

Cultural expressions absolutely definitely must remain free from censorship, self or otherwise. Publishing a tabletop roleplaying book is a cultural expression just like writing a book or directing a movie. Some of it should be kid-friendly, and much of it should be respecting modern values, but definitely not all of it.

My personal belief is that we must be able to depict fantasy worlds much less enlightened than our own, without being accused of endorsing those practices.

That specifically includes presenting a world where slavery exists, and I do not mean for the sole purpose of the heroes eradicating it.

Evil needs to be able to exist without there being an expectation that the characters ought to do something about it, or even feel empowered to do something about it.

Anything less would feel deeply deeply unrealistic.

That doesn't mean you need to want to play such content. The proper response to a cultural expression you feel disgusted or offended by is to turn away, not bring out the torches and pitchforks. Not every story must end with all the bad guys dead or in prison. Roleplaying is much much more than what basically amounts to morality tales.

You might not want to play a woman, say, in a Tarantino'ish world set in a parallel seventies (for every Jackie Brown there's a Melanie Ralston, and so on), but you should defend the rights of others to explore that world through role-playing. Without the characters making the problematization of misogyny the cornerstone of the campaign, that is. Yes, misogyny is bad. But we aren't only allowed to play good characters, are we now? Yes, this freedom is likely abused by MAGA types, but that doesn't mean we should take it away from ourselves.

So I can't answer your question because you didn't include the option to answer:

Q: Is problematic content acceptable in a work if it's presented as obviously and explicitly evil and meant to be fought?
A: Problematic content absolutely must be acceptable, full stop. We absolutely should be able to explore the full range of human expression through role-playing, just as we are through theater, literature and so on. There should not need to be any morality lesson involved. Heroes must not be required to be shining spotless knights and angels. Worlds doesn't need to be starkly black and white.

WorC doesn't have to produce it but otherwise I agree.b
Used to like war movies for example not eoaxdn much ATM but still watch them occasionally.

Movies have the rating system though if you're watching R16 or R18 movies you probably shouldn't be surprised by the content.


Also have a soft spit for Roman type shows/movies.

 

[Maxperson]

Multiple threads here (a year ago? Maybe?) went into how Enchantment/Charm/Mind Control is probably if we think about it, pretty out of bounds.

All civilized societies in my world outlaw it outside of official governmental sources, and then only for specific uses.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Is Hasbro got the licence of Frank Herbert's Dune saga you could bet a Dune d20 would be published by WotC.

I would like to know the difference between respect for the modern audiences and fear to the cancel culture by a little group who causes a lot of noise in the social network. Is it prudence or submission?

OK, we can agree DS wasn't designed to be kid-friendly, but even children could play DS under adult supervision, or at least with a previous chat about ethical limits

* Maybe DS needs to be reimagined, to fix possible plot-holes and like this. For example, if there were deities in Athas... these with the gifts of the prophecy could know the ecological disaster of the Brown Tide. Couldn't, or Didn't they want to avoid this? If Athasian divine powers allowed it, then the Athasians lost truth into them. Maybe the Brown Tide was an intentional ecocide by the Athasian deities in a conspirancy against the Athasian Neptune deity.

* A DS without the Tablelands is possible. The plot could be continued by other ways, for example videogames or new novels.

* How had been the economic, social and cultural impact of the arrival of spelljammers for the blue and green ange? If this happened, then we should have seen "Athasian biotechnology" in other places. Or maybe this was banned because it could be easily "hacked" by infernal powers. What if demiplanes and astral domains were created by Athasians where the blue and green age? Then these shouldn't be affected by the Brown Tide or the Cleasing War.

Maybe there was a second intention in the Cleasing War. In the Green Age the new species "created" or discovered a new generation of deities. Then to destroy these new gods, their worshippers had to be terminated. But then these deities would evacuated the highest number of believers and sent to their domain.

* I like the idea of a new transitional land, the "mirageland". It would work like a "mirror universe", but theorically without the control and tiranny of the sorcerer-kings, but most of times their societies are an almost failed state by fault of defilers and other supernatural menaces.

 

[Cergorach]

It is also a little disturbing that we cast being kind, thoughtful and respectful as "political". We here think this is more something we all should learn in grade school, not a matter of law or governmental action. Dismissing the desire for kindness as "political" is running afoul of our inclusivity policy.

Whoa! I know you're acting with your Mod hat on. But I am not casting being kind, thoughtful and respectful as "<bad word>". Nor am I treating the desire for kindness as "<bad word>", which is by the way very different from being actually kind.

When you quote a very small section of what someone said, that can easily be taken out of context.
Example:

...we cast being kind, thoughtful and respectful as "political".

Umbran said what as a Mod!?!?

If you say as a Mod that my use of "<bad word>" is unacceptable, I'll abide by that decision (as the site rules indicate). But do not use your power as a Mod to put words in my mouth or motivations at my feet in a public forum.

 

[Morrus]

Whoa! I know you're acting with your Mod hat on. But I am not casting being kind, thoughtful and respectful as "<bad word>". Nor am I treating the desire for kindness as "<bad word>", which is by the way very different from being actually kind.

When you quote a very small section of what someone said, that can easily be taken out of context.
Example:

Umbran said what as a Mod!?!?

If you say as a Mod that my use of "<bad word>" is unacceptable, I'll abide by that decision (as the site rules indicate). But do not use your power as a Mod to put words in my mouth or motivations at my feet in a public forum.

Never challenge moderators in-thread. If you have a question for them, you can contact them directly. Please refer to the rules on this, as they're non-negotiable. You've been here 20 years -- I have no idea how you could not have been aware of this.