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

[Scribe]

So your opinion is based on second hand hearsay and advertising rather than anything substantial. Yet you are utterly convinced that WotC is drastically changing the game.

My opinion is formed by

1. Impressions of the art/text that gets previewed.
2. Wizard's own marketing push.
3. Surface level 'influencers' reviews via Youtube, or by threads/discussion here.

Outside of buying the work, what else am I to do?

Advertising (marketing) is very much a real thing. If Wizards performs that action in a way that turns me off of their product, thats my fault?

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here, but do you see the irony in making this sort of claim in a Dark Sun thread? If Auril's curse should have caused civilisational breakdown in Ten-Towns over the course of a year, conditions as written on Athas should have resulted in mass extinctions of pretty much all large water-drinking creatures, including humans, centuries ago. Is traditional 2e Athas also an overly saccharine and sanitised setting then, because it bends the rules of logistical plausibility in order to make a harsh-climate setting gameable?

Yes it should have, but it has not. You could drop those towns almost anywhere else in FR & have no significant difference in culture economy or morality. The human sacrifice "For the benefit of characters who are new to Ten Towns, Hlin can explain that certain settlements (Bryn Shander, Easthaven, and Targos) are making humanoid sacrifices to Auril, holding lotteries to determine who gets sacrificed on nights of the new moon (see "Sacrifices to Auril," page 21). " is practically an afterthought . I'd say that it was stapled on but feel that staples imply too strong of an attachment to the town & plot for that.

Spoiler: pg21 section

SACRIFICES TO AURIL


The desperate people of Ten-Towns, hoping to appease
Auril so that summer can return to Icewind Dale, make
sacrifices to the Frostmaiden on nights of the new
moon. This is a new practice that started a little over
a year ago, when it became clear that Auril was angry
and summer would not be returning anytime soon. The
town speakers (see the "Council of Speakers" sidebar)
have unanimously agreed to honor these practices,
which they consider necessary evils, but would end
them in a heartbeat if Auril were to be appeased or dealt
with in some other way.
The nature of the sacrifices varies from town to town,
but usually takes one of three forms:

Humanoid. Bryn Shander, Easthaven, and Targos hold
lotteries the afternoon before the new moon. The
unlucky person whose name is drawn is sacrificed at
nightfall. The ill-fated soul is stripped bare and either
tied to a post or sent into the tundra to die. Accusa
tions of rigged lotteries are common but usually not
acted upon.
Food. Smaller towns that can't afford to give up people
give up their food instead. A day's catch of knuckle
head trout is strung up on wooden racks a mile out
side town, to be claimed by yeti and other creatures
that embody Auril's wrath.
Warmth. Towns that can't bring themselves to give up
their people or their food forsake warmth for a night.
No fires are lit between dusk and dawn, forcing locals
to share body heat for warmth. Anyone who dares to
light a fire is savagely beaten.

That's hardly the grim reality that you brought up in 696. Even the sidequests that touch on those things are two dimensional at best., they are doing it because it seemed like a good idea... well what good is it doing?... uhh... it seemed like a good idea... why do you keep doing it?... uhh.. "excuse to adventure?"

Darksun doesn't just engage in human sacrifice, it engages in massive human sacrifice in order to maintain the seal on a greater evil (rhajaat) & the only way to maintain that is to engage in terrible restructuring of their apocalypse dwelling society to support it. That restructuring is so awful it leads to a bunch of other terrible things that are all slightly less awful pills to swallow for someone. It creates a situation where there is lots of room for heroes to do things they are needed to do,

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Why?

Is it by fault of possible toxic players, toxic creators publishing in DMGuild or people who aren't linked with the hobby starting a new "satanic panic"?

Who was the one "who cried wolf", anybody within the company, or an external source?

Here we can agree we should show respect for the victims of serious injustices from the real life.... but then should be cancelled "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" or "Criminal Minds"? Horrible things happened in the past. True, but also there were wars with other countries in more recent periods of time. Is now problematic an adventure of "Call of Culthu" set in the Vietnam war?

Sorry but I would rather the excuse of marketing reasons: no psionic powers yet, and too limited for the current standars (player's option and Athasian Tablelands as a too small space).

* Is there any possible solution? I have suggested an update of the crunch in a sourcebook style "Sandstorm" and only a little number of pages about the Tablelands, something like Sigil in 3.5 Planar Handbook.

* If WotC chooses the option to create a new line where the psionic powers are very important.... why not to design it also for future classes with special game mechanics: vestige pact binders, incarnum soulmelders, (ki) martial adepts, shadowcasters&elementalists...

* What if there was a civil war among the Athasian deities, and when "patriarch Oceanus" was defeated then he launched a curse as revenge, and the rest of deities lost the gift of the prophecy. As a result of this the deities couldn't predict the disaster of the Brown Tide (maybe this was caused by them as part of a conspirancy against patriarch Oceanus) or the cleasing war...

* Was allowed the evacuation of the no-halflings for the cleasing war to other zones of the Athaspace?

* I agree about the "massive human sacrifices", among other reasons because people with enough experience in economic strategy games can realise a too hard tiranny would cause a demographic colapse. If you are a too toxic boss then there are greater risks to be betrayed in favor of a rival, at least at least for revenge for the mistreatment suffered.

* Some players could choose a style closer to "sword&sandal" genre, in the sense about there are deities in Athas, but it is a forbidden faith. The fact is even the undeads can't stand in the ground of the circus arena because martyrs were executed, and then the place is like a relic, a "blessed zone".

* What if a spin-off of DS worked as "Ghostwalk" setting? The souls of the Athasians go to a special zone in the afterlife, but they are called by clerics from other zone, because these people need help to rebuild the civilitation after a cosmic disaster. Maybe this happens in other planet within Athaspace.

 

[Hussar]

My opinion is formed by

1. Impressions of the art/text that gets previewed.
2. Wizard's own marketing push.
3. Surface level 'influencers' reviews via Youtube, or by threads/discussion here.

Outside of buying the work, what else am I to do?

Advertising (marketing) is very much a real thing. If Wizards performs that action in a way that turns me off of their product, thats my fault?

There's a HUGE difference between "I'm not interested in this product" and "WotC won't do problematic content" when you cannot even be bothered to do even a surface reading of the content, nor actually listen to the people who are specifically, directly telling you that no, you are mistaken, WotC includes all sorts of problematic content in their works. It's all right there. Does WotC put that in their marketing copy? Probably not. Are the "influencers" whose only purpose is to feed clicks going to tell you that no, there actually isn't a problem here? Not bloody likely.

IOW, why are you arguing with people who actually HAVE read the products in question and are telling you, complete with page and quote if you like, why you're mistaken?

 

[Scribe]

There's a HUGE difference between "I'm not interested in this product" and "WotC won't do problematic content" when you cannot even be bothered to do even a surface reading of the content, nor actually listen to the people who are specifically, directly telling you that no, you are mistaken, WotC includes all sorts of problematic content in their works. It's all right there. Does WotC put that in their marketing copy? Probably not. Are the "influencers" whose only purpose is to feed clicks going to tell you that no, there actually isn't a problem here? Not bloody likely.

IOW, why are you arguing with people who actually HAVE read the products in question and are telling you, complete with page and quote if you like, why you're mistaken?

Brinks is quite literally on record as saying they wont do 'problematic' content.

If it was printed, it wasnt problematic.

I 100% have heard, and listened to, after the fact, that Witchlight, Candlekeep, and the Critical Role book had more teeth than they were advertised, marketed, and presented as having by Wizards, its all a moot point anyway now, as I see zero reason why I should give Wizards another dollar.

I'm not arguing with anyone lol.

 

[pemerton]

Advertising (marketing) is very much a real thing. If Wizards performs that action in a way that turns me off of their product, thats my fault?

No. But it's not evidence that WotC's offerings have become "saccharine" or whatever.

 

[Hussar]

Brinks is quite literally on record as saying they wont do 'problematic' content.

If it was printed, it wasnt problematic.

I 100% have heard, and listened to, after the fact, that Witchlight, Candlekeep, and the Critical Role book had more teeth than they were advertised, marketed, and presented as having by Wizards, its all a moot point anyway now, as I see zero reason why I should give Wizards another dollar.

I'm not arguing with anyone lol.

No, he isn't. He said that they are not doing a Darksun product because of problematic content in Darksun. All the rest of it - the whole "losing problematic content" and whatnot is 100% fabricated. It's just not happening.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

And I wonder if their choice is based in prudence and good sense, or in irrational fear. Is there really any risk of a possible controversy? Was it their choise, or an order from the top, or from outside? Then, in this case, who and why? I can understand in the entertaiment industry there are some rules of political correction, but I see these rules are changing too much in the last years, and not always with a right coherence, and more once because suspicious motives.

Is it a marketing choice based in the good sense, or submission to an ideological agenda? If it the second reason, then I start to worry, and more when more times in the past WotC has talked about "inclusive content". I fear because a thing is told but after the opposite happenes. I am watching several exemples within the entertaiment industry because the companies are losing money because they stopped to be ideologically neutral.

Who could start a controversy linked with DS setting, toxic players, toxic creators in DMGuild or a lobby with no link with the hobby? Kalidnay is in DMGuild, because it was a dread domain within Ravenloft setting.

Really have modern sensibilities changed, or is anybody talking in the name of those modern sensibilities? But what if that anybody is not the true voice of the majority of the public opinion?

Have we lost the good sense? Are we allowing the imposition of new taboos without questioning anything?

What are the criteria for saying when anything can be potentially problematic? who imposes those criteria? Are those criteria really reasonable, or is it a new tiranny in the name of politically correct?

Wouldn't be enough a disclaimer section explaining the players should understand the respect for the human dignity or anything like this?

Why could DS be potentially problematic, but not Ixatlan or Blizzard's Diablo (videogame)?

It is not only about DS but that "respect for the modern sensibilities" could influence in more D&D titles in the future. How can I know what are the true "modern sensibilities"? Maybe they are only a little group talking in the name of the rest of population, but this doesn't mean the true majority shared the same opinion.

* In "Beyond the Witchlight" some children had to be rescued, and I don't say more to avoid spoilers.

 

[Scribe]

No. But it's not evidence that WotC's offerings have become "saccharine" or whatever.

Its not my tweet, thats not a word I would have used to describe the ongoing shift in how they market and produce the game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

And I wonder if their choice is based in prudence and good sense, or in irrational fear. Is there really any risk of a possible controversy? Was it their choise, or an order from the top, or from outside? Then, in this case, who and why? I can understand in the entertaiment industry there are some rules of political correction, but I see these rules are changing too much in the last years, and not always with a right coherence, and more once because suspicious motives.

Is it a marketing choice based in the good sense, or submission to an ideological agenda? If it the second reason, then I start to worry, and more when more times in the past WotC has talked about "inclusive content". I fear because a thing is told but after the opposite happenes. I am watching several exemples within the entertaiment industry because the companies are losing money because they stopped to be ideologically neutral.

Who could start a controversy linked with DS setting, toxic players, toxic creators in DMGuild or a lobby with no link with the hobby? Kalidnay is in DMGuild, because it was a dread domain within Ravenloft setting.

Really have modern sensibilities changed, or is anybody talking in the name of those modern sensibilities? But what if that anybody is not the true voice of the majority of the public opinion?

Have we lost the good sense? Are we allowing the imposition of new taboos without questioning anything?

What are the criteria for saying when anything can be potentially problematic? who imposes those criteria? Are those criteria really reasonable, or is it a new tiranny in the name of politically correct?

Wouldn't be enough a disclaimer section explaining the players should understand the respect for the human dignity or anything like this?

Why could DS be potentially problematic, but not Ixatlan or Blizzard's Diablo (videogame)?

It is not only about DS but that "respect for the modern sensibilities" could influence in more D&D titles in the future. How can I know what are the true "modern sensibilities"? Maybe they are only a little group talking in the name of the rest of population, but this doesn't mean the true majority shared the same opinion.

* In "Beyond the Witchlight" some children had to be rescued, and I don't say more to avoid spoilers.

Based on Hogwarts Legacy sales figures, controversy doesn’t seem to hurt.

If anything is holding them back it’s either thinking it won’t sell or the creative team not wanting to do Dark Sun until the figure out psionics. I’d personally guess the latter.