D&D 5E WotC: Why Dark Sun Hasn't Been Revived

In an interview with YouTuber 'Bob the Worldbuilder', WotC's Kyle Brink explained why the classic Dark Sun setting has not yet seen light of day in the D&D 5E era.

I’ll be frank here, the Dark Sun setting is problematic in a lot of ways. And that’s the main reason we haven’t come back to it. We know it’s got a huge fan following and we have standards today that make it extraordinarily hard to be true to the source material and also meet our ethical and inclusion standards... We know there’s love out there for it and god we would love to make those people happy, and also we gotta be responsible.

You can listen to the clip here.

 

[Scribe]

It's not about it being acceptable. It's about honest scrutiny of literature from a modern perspective. I love Tolkien and Asimov, but they aren't without their problems; I even have a warm spot for Howard. But I'm as conscious of their prejudices and limitations - dictated by their time and cultural milieu - as I am of any other author. Dickens is problematic. Hemingway is problematic. The author of Beowulf is problematic. It's all problematic.

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

 

[Justice and Rule]

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

100% its now all 'problematic'.

So we can acknowledge that there are these issues with past works, past authors, but does that mean we have to be left with Witchlight and Strixhaven?

Apparently. All media that hits a certain number if eyeballs (which gets smaller as time goes on) is now run primarily through the Potential for Offense and Public Scorn Via Social Media filter. The filter catches almost everything interesting or based on any previous works that someone on the internet has a problem with (with is virtually everything).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

I'd actually love to hear everyone's definition of the word "problematic". It's such a buzzword these days, seemingly applied to anything someone on social media thinks is harmful.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do.

I think people have been doing this. There have been a lot of discussions where people have agreed on problematic elements in Lovecraft for example, and in other source material. Personally I tend to avoid language like problematic as I think it can mean anything from vile racism to a slightly off color remark, so more specificity if better in my mind. But there have been plenty of places where people said "Yes this is outdated" or "yes this feels racist". They haven't agreed in every instance because that is the nature of media and literature (one person might see a problem in slavery in Dark Sun for example, whereas another person might not). But the conversation can't go forward if people aren't able to agree to disagree on certain points. We aren't all going to sign off on the same ideas about a book, movie, or RPG.

It's not bad to like problematic things....

Is it? People keep saying that, but then they also tell us we can't enjoy those tropes any more, some even say you are a bad person or unwelcoming if you take a different view of whether something in any of these things is in fact 'problematic'. People have been saying it isn't bad to like problematic things for years now, but it seems like what is permissible and acceptable to that crowd, keeps getting more narrow and there does seem to be this idea that even if something isn't directly 'problematic' it can be tainted by its originator as such and somehow by reusing a trope that has completely lost any of its original connection to the problematic we are somehow either damaging ourselves or the world. I just don't buy into this argument. It seems incredibly flawed to me.

 

[Parmandur]

Apparently. All media that hits a certain number if eyeballs (which gets smaller as time goes on) is now run primarily through the Potential for Offense and Public Scorn Via Social Media filter. The filter catches almost everything interesting or based on any previous works that someone on the internet has a problem with (with is virtually everything).

Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism at work. Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism at work. Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

I...have no idea how to respond to this.

 

[Parmandur]

I...have no idea how to respond to this.

The same thing has always applied: companies don't want to offend or alienate customers. What is changing is what offends or alienates teenagers and twenty-somethings that buy games.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'd actually love to hear everyone's definition of the word "problematic". It's such a buzzword these days, seemingly applied to anything someone on social media thinks is harmful.

Media that deals or references situations or portrays people in a way that might be considered disrespectful or harmful to others given modern outlooks.

I think people have been doing this.

B and S. People have been constantly defending these things as though they aren't problematic, but good things. Stuff like slavery isn't looked at as being problematic, but showing off bad guys and things for people to fight. That's not recognizing the problematic nature of things, those are just defenses. That you want to keep using these things misses what people are talking about.

Is it? People keep saying that, but then they also tell us we can't enjoy those tropes any more, some even say you are a bad person or unwelcoming if you take a different view of whether something in any of these things is in fact 'problematic'. People have been saying it isn't bad to like problematic things for years now, but it seems like what is permissible and acceptable to that crowd, keeps getting more narrow and there does seem to be this idea that even if something isn't directly 'problematic' it can be tainted by its originator as such and somehow by reusing a trope that has completely lost any of its original connection to the problematic we are somehow either damaging ourselves or the world. I just don't buy into this argument. It seems incredibly flawed to me.

Liking problematic things doesn't make you a bad person. That's what that means. And no one has said anyone is a bad person simply for liking old media. I think there is a difference in liking old media but also wanting to continue to use the bad tropes and problematic ideas from that media wholesale.

 

[Scribe]

I mean, the start of it would be to acknowledge their problematic parts, which a lot of people seemingly can't do. It's not bad to like problematic things, but the first step would be to even recognize that they are problematic.

As noted, we can begin with a definition?

That said most engaged here anyway seem more than willing to accept changes to the descriptions of races or cultures that had clear basis in racist or even debatable tropes.

It's not the binary some wish it was.

 

[Bedrockgames]

...Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

The history of public shaming is very dark. Whether you are talking about extreme forms like Ancient Greek ostracization, shaming adulterers in Puritan America (or elsewhere), forced head shaving, struggle sessions, stocks and pillories, or the present forms of using social media to end a person's career and ruin their private life, these are cruel mechanisms for enforcing social conformity, and are tools of mob justice, repressive societies and autocrats. Obviously criticizing something bad publicly is one thing, but taking it to the level of public shaming, is a massive force multiplier that impacts everything from a person's mental health to their ability to put food on the table. You also are not promoting genuine change at all with these methods. You are forcing people to pay lip service to the ideas you want them to express, perhaps to give the apologies you want them to issue, but you are probably filling peoples heart with far more resentment than change.

 

[Justice and Rule]

As noted, we can begin with a definition?

That said most engaged here anyway seem more than willing to accept changes to the descriptions of races or cultures that had clear basis in racist or even debatable tropes.

It's not the binary some wish it was.

I just gave one.

Now can I ask something from your side? Can we dispense with the sky-is-falling crying about censorship and other such things? Can we admit that you have the power to release such things, but that does not protect from the criticism you might receive?

 

[Parmandur]

The history of public shaming is very dark. Whether you are talking about extreme forms like Ancient Greek ostracization, shaming adulterers in Puritan America (or elsewhere), forced head shaving, struggle sessions, stocks and pillories, or the present forms of using social media to end a person's career and ruin their private life, these are cruel mechanisms for enforcing social conformity, and are tools of mob justice, repressive societies and autocrats. Obviously criticizing something bad publicly is one thing, but taking it to the level of public shaming, is a massive force multiplier that impacts everything from a person's mental health to their ability to put food on the table. You also are not promoting genuine change at all with these methods. You are forcing people to pay lip service to the ideas you want them to express, perhaps to give the apologies you want them to issue, but you are probably filling peoples heart with far more resentment than change.

See, thing is, I'm probably waaaaaaaay mote conservative than a lot of people here (somewhere between J. R. R. Tolkien and Benedict XVI), so "they used to do public shamings in the Bad Old Times!" is actually one of the reasons that I appreciate that shame is coming back into style, but now more democratic and diffused. Rational individuals and corporations are going to tack with the wind and do what they have to do in that environment.

 

[Justice and Rule]

The history of public shaming is very dark. Whether you are talking about extreme forms like Ancient Greek ostracization, shaming adulterers in Puritan America (or elsewhere), forced head shaving, struggle sessions, stocks and pillories, or the present forms of using social media to end a person's career and ruin their private life, these are cruel mechanisms for enforcing social conformity, and are tools of mob justice, repressive societies and autocrats. Obviously criticizing something bad publicly is one thing, but taking it to the level of public shaming, is a massive force multiplier that impacts everything from a person's mental health to their ability to put food on the table. You also are not promoting genuine change at all with these methods. You are forcing people to pay lip service to the ideas you want them to express, perhaps to give the apologies you want them to issue, but you are probably filling peoples heart with far more resentment than change.

I mean, alternatively the continued reactionary defense against criticism of things could also be likened to things like the hardening support of slavery as well as segregation in the South, by which I mean these sorts of comparisons are completely ill-suited to what is being talked about and we should really actually concentrate on the context that is being discussed. The idea that you are being so persecuted by people not liking a product you like is inane. No one is shunning you for liking Dark Sun. Please, for the love of Lathander, keep to what actually happens and not some weird persecution complex fantasy where you are going to be exiled like an Athenian statesman for your choice of D&D content.

 

[Bedrockgames]

B and S. People have been constantly defending these things as though they aren't problematic, but good things. Stuff like slavery isn't looked at as being problematic, but showing off bad guys and things for people to fight. That's not recognizing the problematic nature of things, those are just defenses. That you want to keep using these things misses what people are talking about.

This is the rhetorical tactic that you keep using which makes having a real conversation difficult. No one. I repeat no one, is defending slavery. People are defending including it as a fictional element in a setting or in other media. So yes, there is disagreement over whether slavery appearing in a game is problematic. Like I said, we aren't going to agree on all instances here. That doesn't mean people can't see 'problematic' aspects of the works they enjoy. Like I said, Lovecraft is absolutely a case where you can see the racism in his work and you can see it in his diary accounts. While I think Howard is a lot less the case there, the way he talks about race and peoples definitely reflect that early 20th century racial view that existed in the US at the time. Those are both foundational works for the fantasy genre and they contain 'problematic' things. Where our disagreement lies is whether it is a problem to continue using many of their tropes even after so much of their original meaning has been lost anyways, and how much energy and focus should be given to dwelling on those elements in their works when we are reading and discussing them (I think there is a place to talk about HP Lovecraft's racism for example, but I don't think it has to be the only conversation we ever have about Lovecraft, nor do I think it is the most significant or important aspect of his work).

 

[Scribe]

I just gave one.

Now can I ask something from your side? Can we dispense with the sky-is-falling crying about censorship and other such things? Can we admit that you have the power to release such things, but that does not protect from the criticism you might receive?

We can absolutely agree to the later.

Cam we agree that Wizards isn't doing Dark Sun because of social media response the wish to avoid?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Liking problematic things doesn't make you a bad person. That's what that means. And no one has said anyone is a bad person simply for liking old media.

There have been plenty of posters here who have implied those who disagree with them over problematic elements are unwelcoming and against being inclusive or worse.

I think there is a difference in liking old media but also wanting to continue to use the bad tropes and problematic ideas from that media wholesale.

I would agree there is a difference between these two things. I am just very wary of the enterprise to purify genres of these elements (especially when the ideas really don't have the same meaning they originally had when people like Howard and Lovecraft were handling them: in many instances it takes research to even understand that those elements have a history that connects them to things like racism).

 

[Clint_L]

Nothing wrong with that, that's capitalism at work. Public shame and accountability only makes things better over time.

Oh, I strongly disagree with that argument. I think public shame has often been weaponized to terrible results over the course of human history, usually to promote conformity and social control. I do not equate public shaming and accountability. At all. I think they are often opposites.

As to the topic at hand, I am not seeing any positive arguments made for why Hasbro/WotC would want to update Dark Sun in 2023. I am not arguing that it is without merit as art or as a campaign setting, though it is not remotely to my personal taste. But given its inherently controversial premise, poor previous performance, and style/thematics that seem completely at odds with the D&D brand's current, highly successful trajectory, can anyone make a convincing argument for why they, as CEO of the company, would put resources into it?

I can easily see a ton of downsides. Sell me on some upsides.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, I strongly disagree with that argument. I think public shame has often been weaponized to terrible results over the course of human history, usually to promote conformity and social control. I do not equate public shaming and accountability. At all. I think they are often opposites.

Way outside the scope of this discussion, but whether those are different from each other is highly debatable, as is whether "conformity" is bad or good.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This is the rhetorical tactic that you keep using which makes having a real conversation difficult. No one. I repeat no one, is defending slavery. People are defending including it as a fictional element in a setting or in other media. So yes, there is disagreement over whether slavery appearing in a game is problematic. Like I said, we aren't going to agree on all instances here. That doesn't mean people can't see 'problematic' aspects of the works they enjoy. Like I said, Lovecraft is absolutely a case where you can see the racism in his work and you can see it in his diary accounts. While I think Howard is a lot less the case there, the way he talks about race and peoples definitely reflect that early 20th century racial view that existed in the US at the time. Those are both foundational works for the fantasy genre and they contain 'problematic' things. Where our disagreement lies is whether it is a problem to continue using many of their tropes even after so much of their original meaning has been lost anyways, and how much energy and focus should be given to dwelling on those elements in their works when we are reading and discussing them (I think there is a place to talk about HP Lovecraft's racism for example, but I don't think it has to be the only conversation we ever have about Lovecraft, nor do I think it is the most significant or important aspect of his work).

No, your constant concern-trolling and keeping away from the actual topic to larger topics that don't apply are what is keeping us from an honest conversation. People seemingly can't actually reference and defend what is actually being talked about and instead like to reference ideas like shunning and censorship and a bunch of other meaningless things that just makes for a giant persecution complex.

At the end of the day, there is a difference between printing old content and making new content. Printing and publishing old stuff with problematic content is different than creating new stuff that continues to have problematic content. You talk about tropes and how their "original meaning is lost", but I feel like you just don't want to recognize their original meaning and how they functioned. So much of this stuff comes from a time where old views were still deeply engrained in our culture and still had a big influence.

We can absolutely agree to the later.

Cam we agree that Wizards isn't doing Dark Sun because of social media response the wish to avoid?

Maybe? Probably? Does this matter? The idea that this is some big "OH NO SOCIAL MEDIA~!!#@!!" thing misses why people would be angry and just shuffles it into some generalized "They're just a mob that doesn't like things!" It doesn't address what they might be angry at and just focuses on them being angry.

There have been plenty of posters here who have implied those who disagree with them over problematic elements are unwelcoming and against being inclusive or worse.

There are plenty of posters who can't even recognize that their stuff is problematic and continue to try to defend it's usage today. We have people who will defend stuff on the basis that "canon is canon" and that the continued use in a setting is justified merely because it was there before. Those are not good-faith reasons, but literally just appeals to the status quo.

I would agree there is a difference between these two things. I am just very wary of the enterprise to purify genres of these elements (especially when the ideas really don't have the same meaning they originally had when people like Howard and Lovecraft were handling them: in many instances it takes research to even understand that those elements have a history that connects them to things like racism).

It's not "purifying", it's recognizing what was bad and moving away from it. If those genres are only recognizable by the bad parts about them, then what worth do they have in continued use? No one is editing old Dark Sun books. People are actually defending the setting, but they also can recognize that the use of things like slavery, eugenics, etc, are not good and aren't needed to capture what they feel are the most important parts.