More Dark SUn tidbits by Rich Baker

[Danzauker]

But, it's been pointed out earlier, the original boxed set KNEW Tyr would fall. So, rather than starting with Tyr free, it simply implemented that change very early on (as in, the first adventure, and the first novel, which were a tie-in).

A free Tyr is still part of the original setting. 4E can't do it because they know they have a limited product run, so they have to make Tyr free.

Saying that the original box "knew" that Tyr would fall is just like saying that "there will surely be another Last War" because that's what the Eberron guide says.

It's a hint, an opportunity, an idea, but it's not a FACT.

In the DS original box Kalak is king of Tyr. Period.

Freedom is an optional (well, I'd like it was) product. Which I, personally, bought more than 10 years after I bought the boxed set, but it'a another matter.

I'm still very displeased that the 4e incarnation of DS incorporates the fall of Tyr in the premises. I understand the "need for a base of operation" gaming matter, but part of what made DS quite unique was, among many other things, the fact that it didn't have a Sigil or a Sharn for the characters to do whatever they wanted.

Next time? Will they release a 4e Ravenloft with a "Free Barovia", without a Dark Lord, that the PCs can usa as a base of operation?

Not all settings should follow the same premises.

 

[Mark Hope]

Saying that the original box "knew" that Tyr would fall is just like saying that "there will surely be another Last War" because that's what the Eberron guide says.

It's a hint, an opportunity, an idea, but it's not a FACT.

In the DS original box Kalak is king of Tyr. Period.

No, it's nothing like that at all. The first boxed set is very explicit about the imminent revolution in Tyr, and about the role that slaves will play in it. It's far from just a hint. Freedom presented one way that you could portray that revolution. You didn't have to use it. But claims that revolution in Tyr was not written into the setting from the start are misguided at best.

Of course, you don't have to use any of that. You can take Silverblade's suggestions and step away from the setting as described in the first boxed set entirely. Go wild. Have a ball. Why not?

But if WotC decide to run with the DS setting as originally presented and make the most of their limited print run, you can't blame them for taking elements from the first two DS releases and working them into the revision.

 

[Danzauker]

No, it's nothing like that at all. The first boxed set is very explicit about the imminent revolution in Tyr, and about the role that slaves will play in it. It's far from just a hint. Freedom presented one way that you could portray that revolution. You didn't have to use it. But claims that revolution in Tyr was not written into the setting from the start are misguided at best.

Of course, you don't have to use any of that. You can take Silverblade's suggestions and step away from the setting as described in the first boxed set entirely. Go wild. Have a ball. Why not?

But if WotC decide to run with the DS setting as originally presented and make the most of their limited print run, you can't blame them for taking elements from the first two DS releases and working them into the revision.

Yes, of course, I know I can steer away from the fluff and just keep Kalak on the throne in my campaign - and that's exactly what I'll do.

But at least Tyr was described as under the rule of a sorcerer-king, just like EVERY other city-state in the original box. Then came Freedom to ruin everything. And you can ignore it, if you wish.

But what I read on the upcoming adventure is that assumes Kalak has already fallen, so that's not just "going to happen" after the base setting world is estabilished, but IN THE CORE GUIDE itself.

That's what I don't like. I fear I will not see any description of Kalak's Tyr, because it will be wasted space, and I'll just see Freemen's Tyr in the book. Which I don't care about nor like.

 

[Mark Hope]

Yes, of course, I know I can steer away from the fluff and just keep Kalak on the throne in my campaign - and that's exactly what I'll do.

But at least Tyr was described as under the rule of a sorcerer-king, just like EVERY other city-state in the original box. Then came Freedom to ruin everything. And you can ignore it, if you wish.

But what I read on the upcoming adventure is that assumes Kalak has already fallen, so that's not just "going to happen" after the base setting world is estabilished, but IN THE CORE GUIDE itself.

That's what I don't like. I fear I will not see any description of Kalak's Tyr, because it will be wasted space, and I'll just see Freemen's Tyr in the book. Which I don't care about nor like.

Kalak's Tyr received little more than a page in the original Dark Sun boxed set. A few paragraphs - nothing more. So you didn't get much of a description of Kalak's Tyr first time around either. And yet that doesn't seem to have been a problem for you. In fact, what's stopping you from still using those few paragraphs this time around. Or even, heh heh, using Freedom. There was lots of detail on pre-revolution Tyr in there, you know

Look, I understand the desire for Athas to have no free city-states. My current DS game is set in a pre-revolution Tyr. But I think it's pretty daft to suggest that it's a grievous blow to the DS setting to have Tyr free from the outset. Details on pre-revolution Tyr were so sparse in the first boxed set as to be easily handwaved one way or the other. Dark Sun 1e wasn't built on the concept of a pre-revolution Tyr the first time around. Why expect that to be the case this time around?

 

[Danzauker]

Look, I understand the desire for Athas to have no free city-states. My current DS game is set in a pre-revolution Tyr. But I think it's pretty daft to suggest that it's a grievous blow to the DS setting to have Tyr free from the outset. Details on pre-revolution Tyr were so sparse in the first boxed set as to be easily handwaved one way or the other. Dark Sun 1e wasn't built on the concept of a pre-revolution Tyr the first time around. Why expect that to be the case this time around?

Well, because one always hope for things to be better.

Seriously, when I bought my original DS box, I read the description of the setting on the back, and I liked it, I read the booklets, and I liked them.

All the fluff about Tyr's ruler straining the populace too much, was, well just fluff. The booklet itself says:

"even the iron grip of the templars cannot keep the city from erupting into a violent inferno for much longer. [...] When the final battle comes, it will be a terrible thing. [...] Considering the advantages of Kalak's magic, the contest will be a close one.".

It's up to the reader to decide what to do with these hints. From any angle you watch it, the original DS setting was one where the sorcerer-kings had ruled for millennia, so that was considered the natural status quo.

If they wanted Freedom to be the starting point of the campaign, they should have put the adventure packed with the setting. That was the big mistake.

When I (and I guess others) bought the box, we just wanted the box. I didn't care a damn for Freedom or the novels. When I read what would happen in Freedom, I didn't want to buy it. And I read the novels only last year.

I don't care if this was "how the designers wanted to present the setting from the get go". If that was their intention, they sould have put all tht stuff in the box.

 

[Mark Hope]

Well, because one always hope for things to be better.

Seriously, when I bought my original DS box, I read the description of the setting on the back, and I liked it, I read the booklets, and I liked them.

All the fluff about Tyr's ruler straining the populace too much, was, well just fluff. The booklet itself says:

"even the iron grip of the templars cannot keep the city from erupting into a violent inferno for much longer. [...] When the final battle comes, it will be a terrible thing. [...] Considering the advantages of Kalak's magic, the contest will be a close one.".

"Just fluff"?? That's what the setting is made of. There's little sense in dismissing material as "just fluff" when that's all you actually have to go on.

And I notice that you've omitted several key passages from your quote - notably the sections where it talks about the growing revolutionary sentiment and then goes onto foreshadow the role that slaves (the PCs in the adventure) will have in the revolution. You can ignore that "fluff" if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.

From any angle you watch it, the original DS setting was one where the sorcerer-kings had ruled for millennia, so that was considered the natural status quo.

No. The Wanderer's Journal tells us that not all the SKs had ruled for millennia. Some apparently came to power more recently. Some are outright frauds. At least one other is staring revolution in the face. And then there are the ruined city-states and the clear statement that sorcerer-kings can die and have done so in the past. So it's far from a status-quo. And that's all just going by the first boxed set.

If they wanted Freedom to be the starting point of the campaign, they should have put the adventure packed with the setting. That was the big mistake.

On the one hand I agree with you. It might have prevented years of odd misconceptions about Kalak's imminent fate, if nothing else On the other hand, the cool wilderness jaunt of A Little Knowledge is a great mood-setter, so...

When I (and I guess others) bought the box, we just wanted the box. I didn't care a damn for Freedom or the novels. When I read what would happen in Freedom, I didn't want to buy it. And I read the novels only last year.

I only read the later novels years after getting into DS. So I can empathise with the disconnect ("Halflings?? WTF???")

I don't care if this was "how the designers wanted to present the setting from the get go". If that was their intention, they sould have put all tht stuff in the box.

They did. That's kind of my point.

 

[Danzauker]

You and I just disagree on one point.

I don't think that "to hint" at something is "to state" something.

 

[Mark Hope]

No. You're just Playing Dark Sun Wrong. And if you were enjoying it, that was wrong too. And you probably smell as well.







(Seriously, though, I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. No sense in going round in circles. Just so long as you admit I'm right.)

 

[SSquirrel]

I haven't dug out my old DS books in awhile, but my recollection syncs up with Mark's. At least one other city state was staring a possible revolution in the face, but no city was as close to it as Tyr.

Danzauker>I would think it was clear they wanted the campaign to start with Freedom when it was the first adventure they sold and the contents of the first novel sync up with the content of the adventure.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm not happy that Tyr starts as a free city. I hope the setting book will at least describe the option to use a version of Tyr still ruled by Kalak.

I'm also not happy they decided to have one book for both the players and the DM. I understand the reasoning, though: Since there's no new class, there's simply not sufficient incentive to buy a book purely for player stuff.

However, won't this mean the DM's will be the only ones buying it?