WotC So, when do the announce the July book? Guesses on what it'll be? 🤔

[hopeless]

Sharandar?

Council of Wyrms maybe?

 

[Mercurius]

How about if the creators of D&D products simply don't include something that noxious in their games in the first place?

You don't need to worry about something that "might trigger something negative." You could simply use some basic decency to know not to include things like that in a fantasy game that's supposed to be fun for everyone.

I don't know why you are so focused on something that, A) no one is advocating for it being a good thing or an intrinsic part of the game or Dark Sun, and B) is such a tiny part of Dark Sun - and thus not even part of the fantasy game as a whole.

Name one person who has literally be killed by a fire-breathing dragon, or has been turned into an undead, or has been attacked by an actual goblin.

I'm not looking for metaphors here. I want to see the actual cases.

Because the origin of muls isn't a metaphor in-game.

Neither are dragons, undead, etc - they are literal within the context of the game. But that's not the point I was making. The point is that you cannot possibly make every single aspect of the game comfortable for every single possible player, not unless you completely sanitize it. And even if you want to make the default, general rules as comfortable as possible, why can't some worlds and/or stories play with darker, less comfortable material?

When you play D&D, you know you're going into a game involving combat and fantasy violence. "May include sex slavery" isn't one of those things D&D is known for. Nor should it be.

Except if you want to offer a wide variety of settings, none of which are required by everyone to play. Look, I don't care about whether or not sex slavery is part of Dark Sun. What I care about is that WotC retains creative freedom, to offer a variety of settings and stories. I don't even particularly care for "edgy" or "grimdark" fantasy, but I do care that D&D is a game that can explore a variety of types of fantasy.

To the best of my knowledge, D&D hasn't included torture instruments in their equipment lists. I mean, I know that whips are weapons, but I certainly can't recall them putting a gp value on The Rack or The Pear or The Iron Maiden. Does the lack of official torture instruments bother you? D&D also doesn't generally include rules for things like syphilis or cancer (the odd prestige class notwithstanding). Does this make you think that D&D is going out of their way to "avoid triggering people"? Do that also make you think they're following "unreasonable restrictions as to what can be published"?

If not, then why is it so important that they include sex slavery?

Or, you can do the simple thing and change the origin of the muls. After all, no other species in D&D is created solely by forced-breeding for the purpose of creating slaves. Even when orcs were at their worst, it was never assumed that half-orcs were only the result of rape.

See above. But this illustrates the type of conflation you are continuing to make, that @TheSword pointed out: there's a huge difference between including torture instruments in the core rule book and muls. Not only are muls not always the result of sex slavery (as someone pointed out), they are one race in one of many settings. Again, it isn't important to me that Dark Sun includes sex slavery, but that WotC feels like they can publish a setting like Dark Sun that incorporates such elements.

Aaaand here's where I'm done with you.

Exposure therapy, like all forms of therapy, require consent on the part of the patient. The person has to agree to be exposed to the thing that traumatized them, and the person who is administering the therapy has to be an actual therapist who knows what they're doing.

A DM is not a therapist. And the player isn't consenting to therapy; they're playing a game.

And not everyone who doesn't want sex slavery in a game has been traumatized in some way. I've never been sexually assaulted or abused. I don't want sex slavery in my game.

I addressed most of this in what I wrote, but you twisted it anyway. I realize that D&D isn't therapy, but you're missing my point, which is that experiencing uncomfortable things isn't always or inherently bad for you.

And the consent part is a total red herring. No one is forcing anyone to play D&D, to play Dark Sun, or to play a mul - not to mention to play a mul that is the result of sex slavery.

p.s. I don't want sex slavery in my game, either. I never bought the Book of Vile Darkness or the erotic fantasy one, nor have I ever played an evil character (except on a one-off, and I didn't like it).

 

[TheSword]

p.s. I don't want sex slavery in my game, either. I never bought the Book of Vile Darkness or the erotic fantasy one, nor have I ever played an evil character (except on a one-off, and I didn't like it).

I totally defend Wizard of the Coasts desire to publish it though. To look at a different kind of version of the game. For people who wanted that.

It seems that if published now, someone would make the argument that D&D was pro-cancer or heart attacks.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Perhaps the Dark Sun discussion merits its own thread? Since we pretty much know for certain that the July release won't be Dark Sun, it's pretty off-topic here...

 

[TheSword]

Perhaps the Dark Sun discussion merits its own thread? Since we pretty much know for certain that the July release won't be Dark Sun, it's pretty off-topic here...

The dark sun discussion is as dead as Athas

 

[teitan]

Probably similar to what the Venn diagram of "doesn't want sex slavery" and "is okay with little kids shooting themselves in the head" would look. I mean, if you're going to mix random things that don't belong together, together...

Yeah people love to assume those of us who are ok with evil races are some sort of right wing nut job nazis. Such assumptions are no better than those people who like watching kids shoot each other in the head and wear chin diapers and storm government buildings because their favorite lost. It’s just as dehumanizing to people and othering as the supposed racism of all demons being evil.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I've seen one of those players turn GM over frustration that I imposed house rules to fit the campaign style rather than strict RAW thn repeatedly put in silly amounts of effort scouring the page & apologize while blaming the hard cover when the players ask questions like "is there anything on the bodies" I don't know if I ever saw it before AL came out taking a hard line against houserules or if that's what caused it, but I definitely blame wotc for not seeming to make any efforts at addressing it. "But RAW sez" rules lawyering was always a thing as far back as I can remember but this is something new

Eh, meanwhile, the homebrew community is extremely strong, and every third PC I see someone talking about online has some sort of custom thing or other.

 

[tetrasodium]

Eh, meanwhile, the homebrew community is extremely strong, and every third PC I see someone talking about online has some sort of custom thing or other.

It's more an example of how it collides with this problem D&D 5E - Sane Magic Item Prices

The dmg doesn't help matters either


Edit: word did something to make these kind of players much more common and even started designing hardcovers to induce paralysis in them but when it comes to doing things like actually providing advice to help them learn/grow witch throws up their hands substituti"magix items are optional" in place of "its basically unsupported and in some ways designed against"

 

[delericho]

Incorrect, Gen Zers actually are the larger block, at 40%. 8-12 year olds alone are 11% of the player base. Family friendliness for nerds is a part of the modern D&D brand.

Actually, given that demographic chart, and given also the colossus that was "Game of Thrones" just a few years ago, I'm a little surprised that WotC haven't done at least something in a more adult vein.

Obviously, that's not something they'd put in the core - they'd need to mark it very clearly as being for more mature audiences. But I would have thought something like a revived Birthright, with a rather harder edge to it, could be a success. (Or, failing that, set up a more mature adjunct to the DM's Guild, and open up Birthright and/or Dark Sun for development there, or something like that - the Star to their Disney+.)

(On the other hand, "for mature audiences" seems to mostly mean "includes boobs and blood". In which case, I would pass anyway...)

 

[TheSword]

Actually, given that demographic chart, and given also the colossus that was "Game of Thrones" just a few years ago, I'm a little surprised that WotC haven't done at least something in a more adult vein.

Obviously, that's not something they'd put in the core - they'd need to mark it very clearly as being for more mature audiences. But I would have thought something like a revived Birthright, with a rather harder edge to it, could be a success. (Or, failing that, set up a more mature adjunct to the DM's Guild, and open up Birthright and/or Dark Sun for development there, or something like that - the Star to their Disney+.)

(On the other hand, "for mature audiences" seems to mostly mean "includes boobs and blood". In which case, I would pass anyway...)

The 3e Book of Vile Darkness, plus FRs Champions of Ruin were for mature audiences. As was Book of Exalted Deeds and Champions of Valor.

They weren’t really about boobs, aside from a little about Grazzt. Not so much about blood and gore either. More corruption, drugs, martyrdoom, sadomasochism, possession, penitence etc. There were lots of topics in there that normal D&D skirted around but we’re separated into a separate product with a warning.

I thought it was quite a sensible way to publish it actually.