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.

 

[ashenfrontiers]

So just made and published my first video development journal for Ashen Frontiers, all about the systems. Share it out so we can grow the project and help make Ashen Frontiers a reality!

 

[Irlo]

Maybe it is because English is not my first languange, and also because I have learn to untrust people who start to say "this should be censored because it is offensive"... but after I see other things offensive for my own opinion but totally allowed. And I ask coherence and clarity to avoid possible abuses in the name of the "modern sensibilities". I start to worry when I read "we want to create inclusive content", because then the majority starts to be excluded.

I’ve said it before, I say it now, and, the gods help me, I’ll probably end up saying it again tomorrow:

This isn’t about censorship. It’s not about what’s allowed and what’s prohibited. No one is suggesting that WotC should be prevented from publishing anything they please.

It’s not helpful to frame this conversation in those terms.

 

[Scribe]

No one is suggesting that WotC should be prevented from publishing anything they please.

Are you sure? Because I've seen it more than once that people have absolutely stated Wizards should not print content which touches on various themes, concepts, or styles.

 

[Irlo]

Are you sure? Because I've seen it more than once that people have absolutely stated Wizards should not print content which touches on various themes, concepts, or styles.

Yep, pretty sure. You’re conflating two different ideas.

“I don’t think WotC should print this content.”

“I don’t think WotC should be allowed to print this content.”

Point me to anyone who took that second position and I’ll revise my statement.

 

[Scribe]

Yep, pretty sure. You’re conflating two different ideas.

“I don’t think WotC should print this content.”

“I don’t think WotC should be allowed to print this content.”

Point me to anyone who took that second position and I’ll revise my statement.

How about this.

"Wizards should not print this content."

Can we come to the middle?

 

[AnotherGuy]

But making a Dark Sun that's uncontroversial? That's "inclusive" to climate change deniers and people who love billionaires? That's impossible.

That's like saying atheists and monotheists don't feel inclusive playing within a polytheist setting. And I know that's not true. I'm pretty sure anyone who doesn't buy the corporate science on climate change is ok within a dystopian setting where climate was altered by magic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep, pretty sure. You’re conflating two different ideas.

“I don’t think WotC should print this content.”

“I don’t think WotC should be allowed to print this content.”

Point me to anyone who took that second position and I’ll revise my statement.

I don't see a functional difference from a debate point of view.

 

[Remathilis]

I don't see a functional difference from a debate point of view.

“I don’t think you should drive without a seatbelt”

“I don’t think you should be allowed to drive without a seatbelt.”

The first is an acknowledgement that you can do it, it's just an unwise action that could have negative consequences. The second is a prohibition on the action of which breaking the prohibition is a negative consequence. The first is still your choice; you can f around and find out if you wish. In the second, the choice is made for you by someone with the power to enforce it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

“I don’t think you should drive without a seatbelt”

“I don’t think you should be allowed to drive without a seatbelt.”

The first is an acknowledgement that you can do it, it's just an unwise action that could have negative consequences. The second is a prohibition on the action of which breaking the prohibition is a negative consequence. The first is still your choice; you can f around and find out if you wish. In the second, the choice is made for you by someone with the power to enforce it.

Both are still saying "I don't like this thing, and am glad this product that a lot of people like doesn't have it anymore". They are functionally on the same side vs. "I think this thing is ok to have in that product, and disagree with the decision to remove it".

 

[pemerton]

Am I the only person who has links to DriveThru RPG where I can buy Dark Sun content?

That's the only way I can make sense of this "censorship" argument!