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

[Scribe]

Really does not speak well to the hobby that we are purely focused on how bright a picture is rather than the actual content of something.

If they dont want to provide me with art that is interesting, they want to retcon Lord Soth's back story, they want to cover everything in 'but this may offend some'...and market things in every way but what is applicable to me or my interests...why would I buy their products to even see what the content is though?

There is plenty of stuff out there, that is way more interesting, from Planebreaker, or Planegea, or Shadowdark, or well, PF1.

Wizards is free to commision the art in a style they want to market, and to focus their marketing efforts on the things they want as well. No harm no foul.

If they dont market to me, why would I bother giving them the time of day though?

 

[Justice and Rule]

If they dont want to provide me with art that is interesting, they want to retcon Lord Soth's back story, they want to cover everything in 'but this may offend some'...and market things in every way but what is applicable to me or my interests...why would I buy their products to even see what the content is though?

There is plenty of stuff out there, that is way more interesting, from Planebreaker, or Planegea, or Shadowdark, or well, PF1.

Wizards is free to commision the art in a style they want to market, and to focus their marketing efforts on the things they want as well. No harm no foul.

If they dont market to me, why would I bother giving them the time of day though?

I think there is a difference between telling me whether the art is "interesting" or not and declaring something to be sacharrine and without darkness. One of those is up to taste, the other is saying something that does not seem to be true. As it stands, I don't mind the Radiant Citadel but I liked a lot of the recent Lost Omens stuff from PF2 and their worldbuilding stuff was great.

But I guess a cover like this

would apparently get immediately seen as "too happy"? I suppose it's just an escalation of the "real is brown" sort of stuff that is all over RPG settings.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The marketing, mostly.

That and people want Dark Sun for 5e. Personally I just want it open DMsGuild. Doesn't matter to me what they actually produce if they do that.

 

[Scribe]

I think there is a difference between telling me whether the art is "interesting" or not and declaring something to be sacharrine and without darkness. One of those is up to taste, the other is saying something that does not seem to be true. As it stands, I don't mind the Radiant Citadel but I liked a lot of the recent Lost Omens stuff from PF2 and their worldbuilding stuff was great.

But I guess a cover like this

would apparently get immediately seen as "too happy"? I suppose it's just an escalation of the "real is brown" sort of stuff that is all over RPG settings.

Not interesting, to me. I do prefer this cover to the ones Wizards has been putting out, and maybe its because it looks 'real' or more real?

I've been ok with the Lost Omens stuff, but a lot of the time, I just prefer what PF1 had going on.

As far as sacharrine goes? I dont think its to that degree, though a lot of the art from wizards is just completely not for me, so the thing is, if Wizards is still 'in it for everyone' then give me some too? Put out some covers, some settings, some art, that are for me, and meant for me.

The thing is though, we arent going to see it. Not from Wizards, because its too 'problematic'.

As to the 'real is brown'? One of my favourite MTG artists, is Rob Alexander. Specifically, his muted 'real' natural scenes. So, maybe I'm guilty on that one?

 

[Justice and Rule]

Not interesting, to me. I do prefer this cover to the ones Wizards has been putting out, and maybe its because it looks 'real' or more real?

I've been ok with the Lost Omens stuff, but a lot of the time, I just prefer what PF1 had going on.

As far as sacharrine goes? I dont think its to that degree, though a lot of the art from wizards is just completely not for me, so the thing is, if Wizards is still 'in it for everyone' then give me some too? Put out some covers, some settings, some art, that are for me, and meant for me.

The thing is though, we arent going to see it. Not from Wizards, because its too 'problematic'.

As to the 'real is brown'? One of my favourite MTG artists, is Rob Alexander. Specifically, his muted 'real' natural scenes. So, maybe I'm guilty on that one?

When they are talking about sacharrine, they aren't talking about the art. They're talking about the stories. However, I think they largely miss what the stories have, or just prefer to prejudge it and leave it be.

As to muted colors, I think that can work, but often times people miss that historical societies were incredibly colorful. I know there were people who are stunned that Greek buildings and sculptures were actually painted rather than just flat marble. The drabbing of medieval RPGs is terrible, and one of the things I love about Warhammer is that it is appropriately garrish.

 

[Scribe]

When they are talking about sacharrine, they aren't talking about the art. They're talking about the stories. However, I think they largely miss what the stories have, or just prefer to prejudge it and leave it be.

As to muted colors, I think that can work, but often times people miss that historical societies were incredibly colorful. I know there were people who are stunned that Greek buildings and sculptures were actually painted rather than just flat marble. The drabbing of medieval RPGs is terrible, and one of the things I love about Warhammer is that it is appropriately garrish.

Can I just get more of this? I'm not asking for the moon here.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Can I just get more of this? I'm not asking for the moon here.

That's nice, too. But I think there's a lot of great art in Radiant Citadel. I suppose I just enjoy the variety.

 

[Scribe]

That's nice, too. But I think there's a lot of great art in Radiant Citadel. I suppose I just enjoy the variety.

Totally, so I'll be just waiting for my Conan-esque art, and some of that 90's edge variety.

 

[pemerton]

I don't really see the connection between the visual design of recent WotC modules (which may or may not reflect their content), and the reasons why WotC is unlikely to publish a new version of Dark Sun.

I'm kinda wondering where this whole "WotC can't do problematic content" schtick is coming from.

Imagination?

 

[Hussar]

Art style, absolutely look at both covers. That alone gets me looking elsewhere.

Was there ANY part of the marketing for Radiant, or Witchlight, that focused on 'corpse balls' or any of the things listed by Hussar for Candlekeep?

Not that I remember! All that I remember about the Candlekeep marketing was 'ramps' and books'.

I remember someone here outlining how Witchlight had quite a bit more nuance than their marketing push of "You dont have to have combat!" and "look at the fun and safe art" and if we had seen some of that and the art wasnt so...not what I care for, maybe I would have bought it.

So your opinion is based on second hand hearsay and advertising rather than anything substantial. Yet you are utterly convinced that WotC is drastically changing the game.