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.

 

[Scribe]

It's not about it being acceptable. It's about honest scrutiny of literature from a modern perspective. I love Tolkien and Asimov, but they aren't without their problems; I even have a warm spot for Howard. But I'm as conscious of their prejudices and limitations - dictated by their time and cultural milieu - as I am of any other author. Dickens is problematic. Hemingway is problematic. The author of Beowulf is problematic. It's all problematic.

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

 

[Justice and Rule]

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

Apparently. All media that hits a certain number if eyeballs (which gets smaller as time goes on) is now run primarily through the Potential for Offense and Public Scorn Via Social Media filter. The filter catches almost everything interesting or based on any previous works that someone on the internet has a problem with (with is virtually everything).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

I'd actually love to hear everyone's definition of the word "problematic". It's such a buzzword these days, seemingly applied to anything someone on social media thinks is harmful.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do.

I think people have been doing this. There have been a lot of discussions where people have agreed on problematic elements in Lovecraft for example, and in other source material. Personally I tend to avoid language like problematic as I think it can mean anything from vile racism to a slightly off color remark, so more specificity if better in my mind. But there have been plenty of places where people said "Yes this is outdated" or "yes this feels racist". They haven't agreed in every instance because that is the nature of media and literature (one person might see a problem in slavery in Dark Sun for example, whereas another person might not). But the conversation can't go forward if people aren't able to agree to disagree on certain points. We aren't all going to sign off on the same ideas about a book, movie, or RPG.

It's not bad to like problematic things....

Is it? People keep saying that, but then they also tell us we can't enjoy those tropes any more, some even say you are a bad person or unwelcoming if you take a different view of whether something in any of these things is in fact 'problematic'. People have been saying it isn't bad to like problematic things for years now, but it seems like what is permissible and acceptable to that crowd, keeps getting more narrow and there does seem to be this idea that even if something isn't directly 'problematic' it can be tainted by its originator as such and somehow by reusing a trope that has completely lost any of its original connection to the problematic we are somehow either damaging ourselves or the world. I just don't buy into this argument. It seems incredibly flawed to me.

 

[Parmandur]

Apparently. All media that hits a certain number if eyeballs (which gets smaller as time goes on) is now run primarily through the Potential for Offense and Public Scorn Via Social Media filter. The filter catches almost everything interesting or based on any previous works that someone on the internet has a problem with (with is virtually everything).

Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism at work. Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism at work. Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

I...have no idea how to respond to this.

 

[Parmandur]

I...have no idea how to respond to this.

The same thing has always applied: companies don't want to offend or alienate customers. What is changing is what offends or alienates teenagers and twenty-somethings that buy games.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'd actually love to hear everyone's definition of the word "problematic". It's such a buzzword these days, seemingly applied to anything someone on social media thinks is harmful.

Media that deals or references situations or portrays people in a way that might be considered disrespectful or harmful to others given modern outlooks.

I think people have been doing this.

B and S. People have been constantly defending these things as though they aren't problematic, but good things. Stuff like slavery isn't looked at as being problematic, but showing off bad guys and things for people to fight. That's not recognizing the problematic nature of things, those are just defenses. That you want to keep using these things misses what people are talking about.

Is it? People keep saying that, but then they also tell us we can't enjoy those tropes any more, some even say you are a bad person or unwelcoming if you take a different view of whether something in any of these things is in fact 'problematic'. People have been saying it isn't bad to like problematic things for years now, but it seems like what is permissible and acceptable to that crowd, keeps getting more narrow and there does seem to be this idea that even if something isn't directly 'problematic' it can be tainted by its originator as such and somehow by reusing a trope that has completely lost any of its original connection to the problematic we are somehow either damaging ourselves or the world. I just don't buy into this argument. It seems incredibly flawed to me.

Liking problematic things doesn't make you a bad person. That's what that means. And no one has said anyone is a bad person simply for liking old media. I think there is a difference in liking old media but also wanting to continue to use the bad tropes and problematic ideas from that media wholesale.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

As noted, we can begin with a definition?

That said most engaged here anyway seem more than willing to accept changes to the descriptions of races or cultures that had clear basis in racist or even debatable tropes.

It's not the binary some wish it was.