What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Voadam]

I think slavery is one of multiple strong themes in Dark Sun.

Evil Sorcerer Kings

Post Apocalyptic desert.

Metal and water poor.

Psionics.

Defiling magic.

No gods but elemental powers.

Weird D&D including twists on races.

The absence of some common D&D things like gnomes and horses.

The Dragon.

I really liked the original boxed set a lot and a bunch of the supplements and themes, I read the first set of novels but never DM'd it straight as a setting (just a background adventure for a Dark Sun character to get pulled into Ravenloft) and I only played a few games in Dark Sun. I do not like some of the metaplot developments in the setting. I was not a fan of the novels immediately killing off most of the sorcerer kings and the dragon, I thought that took away big cool parts of the setting. So I am a fan but not a hard core fan.

Slavery seems pretty integral for the setting though. Slavery is common in the sorcerer king city states. Arena fighting is mostly a slave gladiator thing and you have the gladiator class as big DS development. You have the sterile half-dwarf muls who are introduced as often bred specifically for slave gladiator and labor purposes.

The first adventure DS1 Freedom sets up slavery as a big background element

"Enter the ancient and corrupt city of Tyr, whose tyrannical sorcerer king has ruled for a millennium. As you wander the city, from the wreck of the Elven warrens to the sanguine splendor of the arena, you realize that the citizens of Tyr thirst less for water than they do for freedom.

Now, after a century of slave labor, sorcerer king Kalak's great ziggurat nears completion. He has promised the city a grand celebration when the monument is done, complete with the most brutal arena spectacle in Tyr's long history. Rumors abound as to the nature of the spectacle: some believe it will bring with it the longed for manumission of countless slaves: others fear the annihilation of Tyr and her people as a sacrifice to Kalak's hunger for power; and a secret few believe it will be a day of revolution - a day of freedom."

The first supplement was DSR1 Slave Tribes.

Some of the adventures have being captured by slavers and escaping as part of the plot.

From my memories of the novels the protagonist of the first one is Rikus, a mul slave gladiator who becomes an ex-slave gladiator hero. Refreshing myself on the Wikipedia entries, other ex-slave protagonists include Neeva and Sadira.

Freeing slaves is a plot element in the novels and the setting with a city where the sorcerer king was killed and slavery abolished.

You can run Dark Sun without foregrounding slavery as an issue, you could easily have players based out of a free area and deal with non slavery related stuff. Just focus on desert survival, weird monsters, the twists on normal D&D stuff, defiling magic, exploring the history and mysteries, the politics, merchant caravans, etc.

You could excise slavery entirely, but you would be taking one of the fairly integral aspects of the background setting away and cutting off a number of fairly standard Dark Sun plot elements (the threat of slavers, escaping slavery after capture, freeing slaves).

 

[Sepulchrave II]

So sword and planet?

I think that's more about a human protagonist being transported to an alien world.

Planetary Fantasy would seem to me maybe to place the environment itself - presented as a holistic entity - as a kind of antagonist to be overcome, so it might include Barsoom. But now I'm thinking about Majipoor, which isn't really hostile in the same way but probably qualifies. And also something like Jack Vance's Big Planet, which isn't really fantasy but includes the "overcoming the environment" aspect. Or even Red Mars by Kim Robinson - which is hard sci-fi, but very planetary in its scope.

There's lots of overlap, and I think these categories are all pretty mutable.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that's more about a human protagonist being transported to an alien world.

Planetary Fantasy would seem to me maybe to place the environment itself - presented as a holistic entity - as a kind of antagonist to be overcome, so it might include Barsoom. But now I'm thinking about Majipoor, which isn't really hostile in the same way but probably qualifies. And also something like Jack Vance's Big Planet, which isn't really fantasy but includes the "overcoming the environment" aspect. Or even Red Mars by Kim Robinson - which is hard sci-fi, but very planetary in its scope.

There's lots of overlap, and I think these categories are all pretty mutable.

This is why I was confused by the term "planetary fantasy". It doesn't seem to have any unique characteristics, or unique combination of characteristics.

 

[Bagpuss]

And, just to clarify my earlier statements. I said that I was not particularly comfortable with the idea of running a Dark Sun campaign with slavery as a theme in a public venue - namely Adventurers League, which, if WotC produced a Dark Sun campaign book, there would be at least one season of Dark Sun AL games.

I got two general responses to that:

1. D&D isn't designed for public play.

Well, I'm not sure if it is or isn't. But, I do know that back in the days of 3e, the RPGA ran in the hundreds of thousands of members. I've no idea how many people play AL, but, I imagine its rather a lot. And, Adventurer's League is probably the most public face of gaming there is. This is many people's first experience with D&D and I'd much rather it was as positive an experience as possible. Like I said, I'm not particularly comfortable running an "Escape slavery" scenario with a bunch of strangers. There are just FAR too many ways that could go horribly wrong.

Even if WotC produce a Dark Sun supplement (unlikely) and it does still feature slavery as one part of the setting (also more unlikely) then the chances a that the any AL adventure for the Dark Sun setting will heavily focus on slavery as the theme of that adventure is even more unlikely considering there is the rest of the world to play in and their already voiced concerns about the setting.

2. If I don't like it, don't play it.

This response I feel far more strongly about though. Basically, I'm being told that not every aspect of the hobby is "for" everyone. That is something I strongly disagree with. I might not like something, it might not be to my taste, fair enough. But, being told to essentially "Shut up or there's the door" for not wanting to play pretend slavery in a public venue is much more of a problem than WotC not publishing a book.

It's not "Shut up or there's the door." it's more "Oh sorry that's not to your tastes, maybe you should try this instead, or maybe this, or that, or the other thing, I'm sure their is something you will like here." Which is much more welcoming.

Because, that's what "If you don't like it don't play it" means. It means, "If you don't like it, too bad, shut up or there's the door". It's the exact opposite of being inclusive. "Oh, you don't like it, well, I guess you're not welcome at these tables" is NEVER a message I would ever want to see in a public facing venue like Adventurers League.

Right so for you to feel unwelcome first WotC need to publish Dark Sun again, featuring slavery, publish and AL scenario where slavery features heavily then make that the only scenario on offer, at the venue... can we perhaps worry about that when it actually happens? Because it isn't going to happen.

It's incredibly anti-inclusive. It's basically telling anyone who doesn't agree with you that their opinion is not even a consideration.

----------

Now, to be absolutely, 100% clear here. Just because I KNOW that this is necessary as a disclaimer:

I am only speaking about public play with strangers. I am not making ANY commentary on private, home games. My concern is ONLY about public gaming. Please do not respond to me about your home games, or offer counter examples that are not DIRECTLY CONCERNED with public gaming.

I'm running a Call of Cthulhu adventure at an upcoming convention, it feature pretty grizzly death scenes (which will most likely happen to the players at some point), which I will describe in painful detail. I've put tags and warnings on the ad for the game that this is the case and it is clearly marked "not for children". If a child signs up for the game I will ask them to leave, because that game isn't suitable for them IMHO.

Is this anti-inclusive? Well clearly it excludes children and people that don't like gore and horror, but is that necessarily a bad thing? The convention has other games on, many of which are child friendly.

You seem to be saying to be inclusive all games have to not offend any possible player.

That you can never say to any player, "actually you might not be a good fit for this game", sorry but I can't agree with that stance, because that put ridiculous limits on creativity. It's like saying all films must be Universal certificate.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

This is why I was confused by the term "planetary fantasy". It doesn't seem to have any unique characteristics, or unique combination of characteristics.

Maybe not. I think the world itself, especially insofar as it differs from our own in geography, climate, biology and culture, is given a central place. Its peculiarities - where it diverges from our normal experiences - are constantly emphasised. Its scope is at once epic (the whole world) and limited (no other worlds intrude; it is self contained).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Slavery as part of the setting would seem to fit perfectly in what you describe. And tons of stories with those themes back me up.

Sure, but oppression is the underlying theme - societal oppression - it's just that the vast majority of those stories were written many decades ago, by white authors, and slavery was even used as titillation in some of them, so it's not necessarily cool to just straight-up emulate them. They're of their time.

 

[Faolyn]

It's the same few people putting forth that argument that also put it forth in psionics threads. It gets rejected by the vast majority there, too. Sorcerer doesn't work to as a psion.

You know what else ain't a good look? Intentionally misrepresenting the other side in order to win the internet. Nobody, literally nobody, is arguing that Dark Sun is the slavery setting.

You yourself said that without slavery, it wouldn't be Dark Sun.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but oppression is the underlying theme - societal oppression - it's just that the vast majority of those stories were written many decades ago, by white authors, and slavery was even used as titillation in some of them, so it's not necessarily cool to just straight-up emulate them. They're of their time.

So we're just taking it off the table then?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So we're just taking it off the table then?

Chattel slavery? I don't see much reason to keep it on the table generally, for like, mainstream settings, unless there's a very specific reason to - it's a bit like rape and so on, you don't just put in casually or even, let's be real "because it would be realistic". It just doesn't help anyone, and doesn't make for a game people actually want to play, does it?

Plus historically it's unusual - most slavery through human history has been more akin to indentured servitude or "prisoners with jobs". Even Roman slavery which was technically chattel slavery tended to operate a bit differently from later forms, with more crossover with indentured servitude.

Obviously it would be extremely weird and problematic to set a game in say, the US pre-1865 or the Roman Empire and not have it as an element, at least in the background, but very few people play historical RPGs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Chattel slavery? I don't see much reason to keep it on the table generally, for like, mainstream settings, unless there's a very specific reason to - it's a bit like rape and so on, you don't just put in casually or even, let's be real "because it would be realistic". It just doesn't help anyone, and doesn't make for a game people actually want to play, does it?

Plus historically it's unusual - most slavery through human history has been more akin to indentured servitude or "prisoners with jobs". Even Roman slavery which was technically chattel slavery tended to operate a bit differently from later forms, with more crossover with indentured servitude.

Obviously it would be extremely weird and problematic to set a game in say, the US pre-1865 or the Roman Empire and not have it as an element, at least in the background, but very few people play historical RPGs.

Sure, but there are plenty of games that draw heavily from the periods you mention, while not actually being those periods point for point. Does it have to be strictly historical? Rome in particular has been used in whole or in part dozens of times in games. Are we not allowed to use Roman-style slavery in those situations anymore?