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

[LuisCarlos17f]

I see now a more realistic solution. Do you remember "Councyl of Wyrms"? If my memory doesn't fail Chris Perkins' homebred setting "Iomandra" is a reimagination of this. I see it like this: Within the elemental chaos of Limbo there is a cluster of demiplanes, Io's Blood islands. Each "island" is ruled by a dragon overlord. Almost all species of dragons from current and past editions could be found in these "islands", like a Jurassic Park for firebreather alligators. Some "domains" are ruled by gem dragon overlords, but here there are more. There are Athasian refugees. How? Do you remember the Athasian Spinewyrm? They are also dragons...(altough the most of rest doesn't agree about this). Then you can publish an adventure, module or storyline with Athasian elements, but DS is not necessary to be unlocked, but other setting where the Athasians can be "guest artists", something like Kalidnay in Ravenloft.

* HOLLOW WORLD! Oh my God! Why haven't I thought it before? Do you remember the Hollow World, a spin-off of Mystara? Here we have the answer, the "hollow world" within Athas, almost totally unaffected by the cleasing war. WotC could unlock "Hollow World" like a totally independient setting, without links with the original Mystara world.

* Please, are we talking with good sense, or really are we worried because any body can be offended too easily? Or worse, talking in the name of other group, and this feeling offended by the paternalism by the other.

 

[Hussar]

* HOLLOW WORLD! Oh my God! Why haven't I thought it before? Do you remember the Hollow World, a spin-off of Mystara? Here we have the answer, the "hollow world" within Athas, almost totally unaffected by the cleasing war. WotC could unlock "Hollow World" like a totally independient setting, without links with the original Mystara world.

It's an interesting idea, but, I know for a fact that it won't fly. Simply writing "Dark Sun" on a completely different setting with virtually no links to the original won't fly at all.

 

[Cergorach]

But why is the inclusion of slavery so important to you that Dark Sun can't be made without it?

Slavery is not the only problematic content in DS, there is more, way more.
I'm not saying that it can't technically be made without it, I'm saying that it kinda stops being DS.

It's like portraying historical Roman Empire without the blood sport Colosseum (and all that entails). Slavery in DS might be a horrible component, but from my perspective it acts as a keystone for the settings other components, sure you can remove it, but I wouldn't want to stand any where near it (when it eventually collapses). You could replace that keystone with something else, but it would still need to function as that keystone, making it just slavery by another name. Just because you don't like how a certain wall looks like, doesn't mean you can just remove it without making the rest of the building collapse.

Trying to make it about me and asking why "is the inclusion of slavery so important to you" is like trying to throw sand in someone's eyes. But do you actually have a workable solution for DS when you remove all the problematic elements? Or is it all theoretical like: setting - bad = win? Sure, we can all pretend it isn't there and that might work for some, but it still smells and we still see the white chalk outline of where the corpse was lying before...

It seems there are a couple of different arguments being 'fought out' in a single thread:
a.) 'I' find slavery in my fantasy world offensive enough to completely remove it vs 'I' do not find slavery in my fantasy world offensive enough to completely remove
b.) slavery in a fantasy world IS offensive vs. slavery in a fantasy world IS NOT offensive
c.) A Dark Sun (like) setting IS viable for WotC (or a third party publisher) vs A Dark Sun (like) setting IS NOT viable for WotC (or a third party publisher)
d.) There is no place for niche products vs. the is a place for niche products

My opinion of 'a.' is that I do not find it offensive enough to completely remove, but I totally understand why some do.

My opinion of 'b.' is that it's an unproductive discussion as most of the people in either group are thoroughly dug into their pov and are not willing to be convinced one way or another. The problem with this is that it seems that neither group is willing to accept that people are allowed their own personal views under 'a'.

My opinion of 'c.' is that it's pretty clear that currently DS is not a viable proposition for WotC. 12.5 years ago WotC saw this differently, the world has changed (again), better accept that reality. Third parties have created DS like settings and those have been commercially unsuccessful.

My opinion of 'd.' is that there is a place for niche products, as publishers in the past and present are showing. And that's proven in other industries as well. Car manufacturers do not just produce for the largest groups of consumers. You could buy a Fiat as a personal car, but Fiat also owned other brands like Ferrari, which produced sports cars that most of the world could never buy.

That combines to: I respect people's personal views on whether slavery as portrayed in DS is offensive or not. I think that the largest parts of WotC current customer base would not buy DS. WotC has a very spotty track record with 'fixing' their settings, and I'm of the opinion that WotC wouldn't be able to make a commercially successful DS (whether by 'fixing' DS or not). On the other hand I do think that companies can be commercially successful by serving smaller niches. Traditionally companies used imprints/brands for these niches. But what a publicly traded company like WotC/Hasbro sees as commercially successful isn't the same as what a small sees as commercially successful.

I would also like to add that even IF WotC was able to 'fix' DS, even then many folks that have problems with that setting won't touch it because of it's history and/or the people who worked on it.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

DS has got too valuable a potential to be forgotten, but it needs a lot of work, not only about to design the update of the psionic powers, but also the special and unique look.

My opinion is WotC is losing the right direction. It is not only this, but the troubles with the last Dragonlance novel, with the new "rules" and how this affected the plot, for example a classic "love potion" is not allowed in the modern fiction.

My fear is their actions is not for launch a product adapted to the current sensibilities, but a surrender to the pressure of little pressure lobbies. That is not the original spirit of the game.

Does Hasbro want D&D to be a family-friendly brand? OK, no problem, but shutting down any possible return of DS doesn't sound very sensible.

I don't mind too much if the metaplot after the Pentad Prism is not continued. I don't worry too much because DS designed with a lot of limitations, not only about the classes and PC species, but also the space, the Tablelands were too "small" to be a "sandbox". What if I want to add new elements to the Tablelands? For example the psiforged, the shardminds, maenads, the elans, the dromites and the xephs, or classes as the crusader and the totemist shaman. Ravenloft was "redesigned" to be more "sandbox", and this allowed more creative freedom for the authors in DMGuild.

Other point is if WotC allows the time-travel and parallel worlds in the D&D multiverse, then this could be the excuse to reboot all the settings. This could be the excuse to explain the new elements added, for example new classes and species.

 

[Digdude]

DS has got too valuable a potential to be forgotten, but it needs a lot of work, not only about to design the update of the psionic powers, but also the special and unique look.

My opinion is WotC is losing the right direction. It is not only this, but the troubles with the last Dragonlance novel, with the new "rules" and how this affected the plot, for example a classic "love potion" is not allowed in the modern fiction.

My fear is their actions is not for launch a product adapted to the current sensibilities, but a surrender to the pressure of little pressure lobbies. That is not the original spirit of the game.

Does Hasbro want D&D to be a family-friendly brand? OK, no problem, but shutting down any possible return of DS doesn't sound very sensible.

I don't mind too much if the metaplot after the Pentad Prism is not continued. I don't worry too much because DS designed with a lot of limitations, not only about the classes and PC species, but also the space, the Tablelands were too "small" to be a "sandbox". What if I want to add new elements to the Tablelands? For example the psiforged, the shardminds, maenads, the elans, the dromites and the xephs, or classes as the crusader and the totemist shaman. Ravenloft was "redesigned" to be more "sandbox", and this allowed more creative freedom for the authors in DMGuild.

Other point is if WotC allows the time-travel and parallel worlds in the D&D multiverse, then this could be the excuse to reboot all the settings. This could be the excuse to explain the new elements added, for example new classes and species.

If DnD is supposed to be family friendly, better get rid of murdering sentient creatures as the main mechanic. I think they already have my little pony rpg for that itch. SO maybe dnd needs to.be more adult content directed.

 

[Raiztt]

Does Hasbro want D&D to be a family-friendly brand? OK, no problem, but shutting down any possible return of DS doesn't sound very sensible.

This question can be answered with simple market research. The assumption that DS is popular/profitable/marketable is just that - an assumption.

 

[Faolyn]

I suppose I judge setting creativity by the 2e standard at the end of the day. Only a few things WotC has ever done really grabbed me creatively. TSR just has a stronger body of creative work to me than WotC, in aggregate.

I take back my statement that WotC hasn't made settings. But only Eberron really seemed cool and inspired to me. And even then, Eberron is hardly my favorite D&D setting.

You can't judge two different eras against each other. The times were completely different back then. Heck, back then, they were just churning out things to make a buck. It's why Spelljammer is so weird--the writers weren't given the time or ability to truly playtest the setting.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

This question can be answered with simple market research. The assumption that DS is popular/profitable/marketable is just that - an assumption.

This, I think.

Why stay beholden to a long ago property with issues they (WotC) and others feel are complicated and without a 'win' option, when they can(should?) just release new settings with new mechanics and new ideas like when they had the original contest to create Eberron? To quote Judge John Hodgman: "Nostalgia is our most toxic impulse."

DS without its darkest DS elements won't be satisfying, I don't think, in the same ways I feel Dragonlance lost its way by straying from its poles: dragons and war. No one's saying people can't be playing DS - just no new material will be forthcoming.

(BTW, didn't mean this as a specfic reply as much as a general comment)

 

[Faolyn]

If DnD is supposed to be family friendly, better get rid of murdering sentient creatures as the main mechanic. I think they already have my little pony rpg for that itch. SO maybe dnd needs to.be more adult content directed.

Define "adult". Because an adult RPG is either going to be smutty, have teenager levels of "cool edginess" (a la the Book of Vile Darkness), or is going to involve actually mature topics--like solving problems through means other than just murdering them. It's far more mature to work out your problems through compromise and understanding than it is using violence as your first resort.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You can't judge two different eras against each other. The times were completely different back then. Heck, back then, they were just churning out things to make a buck. It's why Spelljammer is so weird--the writers weren't given the time or ability to truly playtest the setting.

They churned out what they thought was cool, and that people would buy. They weren't hamstrung by social media. It was a better time for creativity. Most of the things I love about D&D originated in the 2e era.