D&D 5E Updating Dark Sun to 5th Ed

[MGibster]

Canon and continuity have a non-zero positive value. Retcons are always a mistake, regardless of how good the intentions behind them are.*

Deadlands was released in 1996 and was set in the American old west in 1876 in an alternate history where the Confederacy was still in existence and engaged in a cold war with the United States. As the Confederacy had established their own independent nation, this effectively meant they won the Civil War. I believe the folks at Pinnacle Entertainment Group wanted to provide fertile ground for spy vs. spy shenanigans which is why they had the Confederacy still around. Not only was the Confederacy around, but making characters that were Confederate officers or Texas Rangers were viable choices. PEG made this a bit more palatable by having the Confederacy abandon the institution of slavery, there's no institutional racism, and the people rejoiced. Yay! I'm sure PEG got rid of slavery and racism in the game because they just wanted to make sure everyone had a good time. But the original Deadlands setting really played into the hands of the Lost Cause narrative, and as the young people say, this was problematic.

This was becoming more of a liability for PEG's flagship game. If you look up threads here or in other forums about Deadlands, as the years pass you'll run into more and more posts from people who disliked the Confederate aspect of the game so much they would never play it. In an era where people are tearing down monuments to the Confederacy, it's just not a good look to play into the Lost Cause narrative whether intentional or not. So PEG retconned the setting. Sort of. All that Confederacy winning the war stuff still happened, but because of some time traveling shenanigans, the Confederacy ended up losing the war in 1871. So in the current incarnation of the game, now set in 1884 (I think), the Confederacy lost the war. And the game is better off for me. Despite being my favorite game from the 1990s, I never based any of my adventures off the cold war between the CSA and USA. And while I could accept undead gunslingers, mad scientist with jet packs, and gamblers turned wizards I just couldn't buy the CSA emerging victorious.

Once thing to keep in mind when talking about older D&D settings, is that younger players don't necessarily have the same attachments. Honestly, it's been so long since I've read many of the older settings that I can't remember all the little details. WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers. Of course there's a delicate balance between making some minor changes and making changes that betray what made the original so great. But that's just a risk you take I guess. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers."

And that's where we disagree. No. They should leave it alone, or they should make a brand new setting.

As you say, younger players don't have the same attachments. So, no reason to use it in the first place if you can't use it as is and build on it.

It is better to let something fade away than to change it to be something other than what it is.

If you have no respect or affection for the past of something, then create something new. But don't pretend that past didn't happen. That is so much more problematic.

 

[Charlaquin]

"WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers."

And that's where we disagree. No. They should leave it alone, or they should make a brand new setting.

As you say, younger players don't have the same attachments. So, no reason to use it in the first place if you can't use it as is and build on it.

It is better to let something fade away than to change it to be something other than what it is.

If you have no respect or affection for the past of something, then create something new. But don't pretend that past didn't happen. That is so much more problematic.

No one is pretending the past didn’t happen. They’re learning from the mistakes of the past and creating something new, inspired by the original, that addresses those mistakes. The original still exists if you prefer it* and the new version is its own thing built on the best parts of the old.

*that’s real problem with han shooting second - not that a special edition was made with changes, but that the original, unchanged version is no longer available (through normal, legal channels, anyway).

 

[Sithlord]

"WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers."

And that's where we disagree. No. They should leave it alone, or they should make a brand new setting.

As you say, younger players don't have the same attachments. So, no reason to use it in the first place if you can't use it as is and build on it.

It is better to let something fade away than to change it to be something other than what it is.

If you have no respect or affection for the past of something, then create something new. But don't pretend that past didn't happen. That is so much more problematic.

I couldn’t agree more. I would rather see new settings created than destroying ones that already exist by making them something they aren’t.

 

[Charlaquin]

I couldn’t agree more. I would rather see new settings created than destroying ones that already exist by making them something they aren’t.

Nobody is destroying anything. The old ones still exist. Play them if you prefer them. Or take your favorite bits from each version and make it your own.

 

[Charlaquin]

If you were running a game and a player said "I want to play a half-orc paladin" would you say "no?"

If it was a dark sun game? Absolutely.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

"WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers."

And that's where we disagree. No. They should leave it alone, or they should make a brand new setting.

As you say, younger players don't have the same attachments. So, no reason to use it in the first place if you can't use it as is and build on it.

It is better to let something fade away than to change it to be something other than what it is.

If you have no respect or affection for the past of something, then create something new. But don't pretend that past didn't happen. That is so much more problematic.

From a business perspective, not making your product more acceptable for customers is the opposite of good decision-making.

 

[DemoMonkey]

"Nobody is destroying anything. The old ones still exist. Play them if you prefer them. Or take your favorite bits from each version and make it your own."

Or...just ignore the parts out of the old one that you don't like?

Things are what they are. The evolution of ideas should lie in new creation, not revisionism.

To the people that like something as it is, changing it is disrespectful, and gains you nothing that you couldn't accomplish better by making something new.

It's not only mean-spirited, it's sub-optimal.

 

[Eltab]

Once thing to keep in mind when talking about older D&D settings, is that younger players don't necessarily have the same attachments. Honestly, it's been so long since I've read many of the older settings that I can't remember all the little details. WotC absolutely should retcon the setting where necessarily in order to create a setting palatable to the bulk of their customers. Of course there's a delicate balance between making some minor changes and making changes that betray what made the original so great. But that's just a risk you take I guess. Someone is always going to be unhappy.

WotC should create a new setting if they cannot hack the older ones (or think their customers would reject the older ones) - a setting with the new customers' tastes and preferences in mind.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

"Nobody is destroying anything. The old ones still exist. Play them if you prefer them. Or take your favorite bits from each version and make it your own."

Or...just ignore the parts out of the old one that you don't like?

Things are what they are. The evolution of ideas should lie in new creation, not revisionism.

To the people that like something as it is, changing it is disrespectful, and gains you nothing that you couldn't accomplish better by making something new.

It's not only mean-spirited, it's sub-optimal.

Any editor would scoff at this. A rough draft of a product is not inherently better than a revised one.