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

[MGibster]

WotC isn't publishing Dark Sun, in part, because they can read the writing in the room. Striking a balance between being true to the spirit of the setting while making a modern audience happy is a nigh impossible task. If WotC is stifled, it's because the reality of the situation makes publishing Dark Sun untenable in the current climate. We can complain about the current climate, or praise it, but WotC is making a business decision based on the market.

 

[Mark Hope]

WotC isn't publishing Dark Sun, in part, because they can read the writing in the room. Striking a balance between being true to the spirit of the setting while making a modern audience happy is a nigh impossible task. If WotC is stifled, it's because the reality of the situation makes publishing Dark Sun untenable in the current climate. We can complain about the current climate, or praise it, but WotC is making a business decision based on the market.

And that's really what this comes down to. They've read the room and made a sound business decision. We can't fault them for that. Another company (or even WotC under different circumstances) could release a 5e version of Dark Sun and, so long as they handled its themes responsibly, wouldn't be wrong for doing so. Problematic issues, handled with due care, have a place in gaming, as much as they do in other forms of media and art. This is not a moral failing and is not something to be ashamed of and nor is it something people should be criticised for believing. But economic realities trump artistic expression, however, and so here we are. With discourse as it stands, WotC would be foolish to take any other approach.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

OK, it is their business, their money, their responsability, but maybe they are listening the wrong voices. They may worry too much about to suffer a boicott, but there is a recent example when a group asked a boicott against certain videogame, and the boicot has failed totally. And there are movies that have been a total drop in the box-office because the true majority of the audence didn't want certain elements.

There is a D&D Ricky&Morty, but we know that is not for children at all. Is "Stranger Things" a kid-friendly teleserie?

The speculative fiction can tell about villains doing evil actions, but the key is to stop all that poison and injustices we have to defend the respect for the human dignity.

 

[Lanefan]

No, I don't agree that's a position people are taking. Objections to depictions of slavery, obejctions to descriptors and artwork of imaginary races ... those objections are NOT grounded in the idea that people can't distinguish fantasy from reality.

I think those objections are at least somewhat grounded in the idea that people can't separate fantasy from reality, in that they can't (or won't) look at fantasy strictly as fantasy without drawing parallels with reality, even if the fantasy's author(s) had no such thing in mind.

 

[Lanefan]

In fact you can, right now, write a Dark Sun ebook and release it for free on the Dark Sun subreddit, or make a Dark Sun blog and include as many slaves as you want. If you don't want to redact or edit history, why don't you do this?

Given all the recent OGL controversies and suchlike, I have to ask: can you, legally? 'Cause if yes, that has some very interesting implications elsewhere that I'd be rather keen to follow up on.

I highly doubt Dark Sun as a setting is public domain yet, but I've no idea if that IP was included under the new CC umbrella.

 

[Lanefan]

It is a societal right, but that's only because it deals with government power over speech. That's the whole point.

There's a very good and sound argument to be made, however, that the concept should be expanded such that it deals with anyone's power over anyone else's speech.

In other words, it doesn't (and shouldn't) make a difference whether it's a government, a corporation (who are IMO by far the worst offenders these days), or an individual person trying to shut down the speech of another; it's equally as bad in all cases and ought to be treated as such.

 

[Hussar]

Well, that was not a well-considered response. Yikes.

Really?

Is anyone saying that WotC is not able to publish Dark Sun? Is anyone saying that WotC must be prevented somehow from publishing?

Nope.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. WotC is 100% free to publish whatever it feels like. However, I'm am also 100% free to criticize such works.

Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to things you happen to like.

 

[Cergorach]

If there was any risk of controversy, why with DS and not any of the titles published by others? For example World of Darkness. Or manga where some characters were slaves bought or freed by the main hero.

The issue is not 'risk of controversy' in general, it is 'risk of controversy' for large and growing brands by large companies. WotC is huge, Paizo is probably the next largest pnp RPG company and something like Star Wars RPG might be big, but it also needs to be approved by Disney. They stopped serving a niche (of a niche) and went mainstream (as much as that is possible for pnp RPG).

These companies did their marketing research, identified their market and who has influence in that market. And this is the result. You can argue until you see blue in the face, but this is the reality at WotC (and other companies). Anything even hinting at certain controversy

World of Darkness is no longer an 800 pound gorilla it once was, White Wolf has been dead for a while as a pnp RPG publishing entity, most of the WoD is sub-licensed. Onyx Path ran their last WoD kickstarter project (M20 - Technocracy Reloaded) almost 3 years ago... But the still publish stuff (just not via KS anymore) You might have missed the whole shenanigans with Vampire the Masquerade 5E, it even went so far as that the current owner (Paradox Interactive) pulled the license and pretty much redid the offensive stuff...

As for manga/anime, have you lived under a rock? Let's not call them by name, but there have been quite a few manga/anime with these subjects and those have been problematic, many, many critics. And as I can only speak from what I've read on the English written side of things, depending on where you look, they have been quite vocal. The big difference here is that these manga/anime have not been produced for the English speaking western market, but for the local Japanese market. That these properties do well enough outside of the Japanese borders is a different matter.

OK, it is their business, their money, their responsability, but maybe they are listening the wrong voices.

"Listening [to] the wrong voices" might be interpenetrated very badly. But there are no 'wrong' voices, there is only the market and how a company can sell the most product. Looking at WotC, even before the current management issues, WotC was going into this direction. And WotC has a history (since they acquired TSR) of doing some thorough market research and I can't say I disagree with their evaluation of their market. And WotC has shown that their way is the 'right' way from a business perspective, WotC has never been bigger. This has never been about social justice or what is offensive to WotC, it's about where their largest market share is socially/politically located and marketing to that segment. To be blunt, if WotC/Hasbro as a company thought they would be more profitable with selling what they are now trying to remove from their product, they would.

There is a notable difference. This allusion to the Satanic Panic keeps making the rounds like it’s some sort of slam dunk argument.

<snip>

You want Dark Sun? It’s all right there in pdf format. Every bit of published material for your enjoyment. But I do t feel that it is appropriate for WotC to actively support that line knowing that it will make chunks of the fandom unhappy.

The Satanic Panic is probably the safest bet from all the examples, what it does is not only show that the fanbase and the company don't listen to everyone's unhappiness, just to those that 'matter' and bring in more money. The fanbase is selective and easily pressured by certain social groups, this is no different from the D&D fanbase from 40 years ago, the social groups exerting the pressure have just changed and their position (external vs internal). WotC is just playing that market the same way TSR was doing back in the day. That is probably not what some people want to hear, but that is the reality of big business.

That is also the reason why certain companies in the other (extreme) end of the social/political field failed so miserably. Is there a market for them, sure, is it big? No.

Imho DS was always a niche product, even back when D&D was a niche product (a niche within a niche). D&D might have gone mainstream, but I doubt that DS has gone the same route. I think that the D&D team at WotC has looked multiple times at DS and they must have come to the realization that if they bleach DS, there will be nothing left, putting the DS label on that left over pile will do more harm then good. New players are in virtually a new setting with an old brand name, that might have it's own stigma attached, while old fans do not recognize what is left of it and lash out at WotC/D&D. Better to leave it in fandom. And why cater to an older demographic, who's numbers only dwindle, while you have a far bigger pool of a younger demographic whom you can still sell product to for decades and a generation that is also far more willing to buy services instead of only physical books...

I absolutely agree with you, WotC is not in a position to do the setting 'justice'... Better leave it in the hands of the fans that are left. And sites like Athas.org and the DarkSun Reddit have been at it for almost two decades, 3E/5E support, new adventures, new supplements, etc. If you want to play 5E DS you can. No official support of WotC required! And all the old products are available as pdf from DMs Guild.

The only thing I would like to see is that DMs Guild would allow third parties to produce material for all their settings, including DS. It is imho not necessary, just a nice to have feature.

Spelljammer had disappointing sales, but certainly not due to ‘bleaching’ (whatever THAT is…)

What is 'bleaching'? A very aggressive chemical used for cleaning and removing stains, but it also removes color...

Price isn't such a huge issue when the first 'real' product (besides a 3E Dungeon adventure) in almost 30 years is released. I was considering it as an actual physical purchase (for my already far too full bookcases), until all the marketing hit, and that was mostly/primarily focused on how they made Spelljammer PC. I don't mind PC, but if that's your main selling point, I start to worry. And at some point you need to realize and accept that WotC is no longer making the same type of product they were making 15-20 years ago...

Looking at the referenced reviews/reviewers on Wikipedia, I see only positive reviews of the product, reviews made by a younger generation of gamer. That pretty much indicates it's target audience.

 

[Hussar]

There's a very good and sound argument to be made, however, that the concept should be expanded such that it deals with anyone's power over anyone else's speech.

In other words, it doesn't (and shouldn't) make a difference whether it's a government, a corporation (who are IMO by far the worst offenders these days), or an individual person trying to shut down the speech of another; it's equally as bad in all cases and ought to be treated as such.

So, we're never allowed to criticize a work?

When people jumped up on WotC for the Hadozee, were they "equally bad and ought to be treated as such"? No one should be allowed to point out where these problems are?

Where does it stop? Are we only allowed to criicize things that you agree with? Are not not permitted to criticize at all? Are all works, once published, absolutely free of criticism and must never be spoken of in any negative terms?

Obviously not. Again, freedom of speech is not freedom of responsibility or repercussions.

And the notion that freedom of speech must be absolute simply leads to the majority silencing all minority voices by shouting them down. After all, the minority voices are unimportant because, well, freedom of speech and they aren't allowed to criticize works.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No one is saying something can't be made, but rather that there are certain consequences and pitfalls with things being made. You can make whatever you want, but you are not free from judgment in that regard.

It certainly does read as saying something can't be made, as in, there is no value and thus no one should want to and thus it shouldn't be allowed.

Like, what else is the point of the argument? Are you really trying to say "make whatever you want, but know that it has consequences" and not, as it has seemed across the entire thread, "no, don't even make that in the first place"?

What people are saying is that the interactive nature combined with the broad audience and sensitive material being talked about would make it difficult to properly adapt without taking due care. People don't think that Wizards can do that, and it seems as though even Wizards doesn't think that they can do this.

Which people? I certainly think it's possible. In fact, given the amount of money they have to throw at the problem, I think they're some of the best-equipped people to do it and actually give it due care.

You mention a "chilling effect", but no one has tried to not discuss it. Instead people don't seem to realize that it is very different to talk about how you run things in your personal group versus producing something that is meant to be consumed by the masses. I know I can deal with topics in my group that I would not be comfortable publishing because I do not know how a broader audience would necessarily interpret how I did things, nor might it hold up to the level of scrutiny if released to a broader audience.

...which, again, sounds like "no, don't even make that in the first place." That is the very "chilling effect" being discussed.

And it's not like I disagree with you on the responsibility thing. I've said it repeatedly, from the very beginning.