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

[Haplo781]

I think the problem is the OGL and Creative Commons license... WotC may present the problematic content as explicitly evil and meant to be fought but there's nothing stopping anyone else from publishing the Dark Sun Guide to Being a good Slave Master or the Dark Sun Halfling's Guide to Food Preparation. That's the problem... they don't have control over what's done with it.

That's not how Creative Commons works

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Are the people in these threads going to be the only ones buying it?

?

If some goofball in some forgotten place thinks a D&D setting fiction should be imitated, a game is the very least of their problems.

I know it’s not right to hurt puppies even if monsters in D&D Might do it.

If we design entertainment always fearing someone will act it out, I am not sure what we are left with.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Put another way: is anyone in any of these threads confused that slavery is supposed to be bad?

That it was not always that way is another matter.

Right now, here. Are there many literate D&D players that would read dark sun and think it’s ok to enslave people?

People are acting like they can't enjoy it without the slavery, so...

 

[Umbran]

Who do I admire? People that can be adults ...

Mod Note:
Yeah. People that can be adults are admirable.

Adults can choose to not insult each other. So maybe you can be more admirable about the whole thing too.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

People are acting like they can't enjoy it without the slavery, so...

Not entirely sure what leap you are making but have fun with it I won’t try to sway it one way or another.

For those that want violence in game are they promoting real violence real world?

That one is your call too. I don’t want a D&D without violence. What does that mean?

 

[Justice and Rule]

?

If some goofball in some forgotten place thinks a D&D setting fiction should be imitated, a game is the very least of their problems.

That's great, but also it's good to limit how much you enable them to act out those fantasies on your own end.

I know it’s not right to hurt puppies even if monsters in D&D Might do it.

Sure, but if I made a city setting with legalized dog-fighting, even if those people were portrayed as evil it would be reasonable to assume that you could interact with them in a legal manner, and that if you give bad actors that avenue they will gleefully use it. The point is to think about your setting and avoid doing stuff that is easily turned into something problematic without modification. See my next paragraph for a real-life example.

If we design entertainment always fearing someone will act it out, I am not sure what we are left with.

I think there's more at play than just that here, but I think it should be considered how people will interact with things. I'm reminded that in Pathfinder Society for a while you could purchase a slave. That obviously did not go over well with a lot of people, but it was rules-legal.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

That's great, but also it's good to limit how much you enable them to act out those fantasies on your own end.



Sure, but if I made a city setting with legalized dog-fighting, even if those people were portrayed as evil it would be reasonable to assume that you could interact with them in a legal manner, and that if you give bad actors that avenue they will gleefully use it. The point is to think about your setting and avoid doing stuff that is easily turned into something problematic without modification. See my paragraph for a real-life example.



I think there's more at play than just that here, but I think it should be considered how people will interact with things. I'm reminded that in Pathfinder Society for a while you could purchase a slave. That obviously did not go over well with a lot of people, but it was rules-legal.

Yeah. WOTC would have to think hard about including something like that.

Nevertheless, just as with rules exploits you cannot really design a game with an over focus on stamping our naughty thoughts and behavior. No I mean you could but yikes.

That people will misuse—-anything—-is almost a given as far as I am concerned. They will and do misuse things.

Some people can be trusted with a gun or a car or maybe will do creepy things in video or role playing game. All of that is true.

But I still want to drive..:and play heroes is dire straits in a fantasy world, I am certain people in the world can—-and do—-objectionable things in their pretend worlds.

 

[Campbell]

I think there's absolutely room for exploration of problematic content in a sensitive way. I'm just not sure a game made by a publicly traded corporation that is marketed to 12-year-olds (and is often used for public rather than just home games) is the best place to do so. This is part of what goes along with the game's current level of popularity.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah. WOTC would have to think hard about including something like that.

Nevertheless, just as with rules exploits you cannot really design a game with an over focus on stamping our naughty thoughts and behavior. No I mean you could but yikes.

That people will misuse—-anything—-is almost a given as far as I am concerned. They will and do misuse things.

Some people can be trusted with a gun or a car or maybe will do creepy things in video or role playing game. All of that is true.

But I still want to drive..:and play heroes is dire straits in a fantasy world, I am certain people in the world can—-and do—-objectionable things in their pretend worlds.

Again, you can't cover everything, but you can force trolls and such to do it themselves. When you have slavery as a legalized thing, especially in this sort of game, there's absolutely going to be people asking "How much for a slave?" and that's a question you want to avoid.

And you still can play that in your old campaigns, but I'm not sure that given what Wizards and D&D is now that it would be prudent. There are definitely games meant to deal with that sort of topic, but I don't know if D&D is the best one given how wide the audience is.

I think there's absolutely room for exploration of problematic content in a sensitive way. I'm just not sure a game made by a publicly traded corporation that is marketed to 12-year-olds (and is often used for public rather than just home games) is the best place to do so. This is part of what goes along with the game's current level of popularity.

So I helped Kickstart a Delta Green campaign called God's Teeth which absolutely includes amount child abuse and animal abuse. Of course, that game goes out of its way to talk about that stuff and explain it and present it in the most horrifying way possible, while also making it the mission to destroy that s***. But that's because Delta Green's gameplay is focused around destroying that stuff, unlike D&D which is basically a sandbox.

 

[Scribe]

That's great, but also it's good to limit how much you enable them to act out those fantasies on your own end.



Sure, but if I made a city setting with legalized dog-fighting, even if those people were portrayed as evil it would be reasonable to assume that you could interact with them in a legal manner, and that if you give bad actors that avenue they will gleefully use it. The point is to think about your setting and avoid doing stuff that is easily turned into something problematic without modification. See my next paragraph for a real-life example.



I think there's more at play than just that here, but I think it should be considered how people will interact with things. I'm reminded that in Pathfinder Society for a while you could purchase a slave. That obviously did not go over well with a lot of people, but it was rules-legal.

Right, but nobody is saying to put costs and rules (and this is wizards we are talking about, you know they are going to skimp on rules!) for slavery anyway. Nobody is going to look up a table with costs for a person, which afaik was the issue with PF.