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.

 

[pemerton]

Creating and fostering an atmosphere where creative people are regularly in fear that their ideas will lead to public condemnation, directly leading to less variety as RPG makers trend towards the least offensive thing they can think of because anything else is too dangerous?  That's a good thing?

We live in a very interesting time in terms of RPG publishing because everyone who wants to can make a game and publish it. It might not have the greatest art, or all the bells and whistles, but if you have a computer, you can probably write and layout an RPG and put it up for sale. So there is no completely stopping any idea in RPGs (which is why something like Myfarog can exist even though I am sure we all, and most of the hobby, find its ideas objectionable). I think where the censoriousness comes in is more in how creatives can be treated when they do try to make something like the product you link, and if it starts to catch enough attention or something in it isn't handles in a way a contingent of people think was done well.

Vincent Baker and Luke Crane are the authors of the two RPGs I linked to (In A Wicked Age and Burning Wheel). I don't think they've been drummed out of the RPG industry for making them!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Vincent Baker and Luke Crane are the authors of the two RPGs I linked to (In A Wicked Age and Burning Wheel). I don't think they've been drummed out of the RPG industry for making them!

They haven't. Like I said this isn't so black and white that it happens to anyone who takes a risk. And I am not familiar enough with their games to know exactly what risks they have taken creatively, but I have heard their names plenty of times and realize they able to publish just fine. Some of that may have to do with the audience they have cultivated as well, or it could be how they handle the subject matter (there does seem to be a sophisticated way of addressing controversial content that avoids getting a negative reaction). But it definitely does happen to people and I think the corridor of what is permissible in terms of not receiving a potentially very bad online reaction is narrowing. I mean again here we are talking about a pretty standard trope of slavery in a fantasy setting. And that is such a hot issue, WOTC won't even tough it.

But how confident are you those games in question would stand up to twitter scrutiny if they secured a major publisher or if they attracted a broader conversation in the RPG community? Maybe they would be fine (like I said they might have that sophisticated style that is less likely to perturb people on twitter and other social media platforms). But I think what often happens when these things start getting discussed in venues like that, is things are presented out of context, or in the worst light and it becomes very difficult to defend them even if they are entirely defensible.

One reason I prefer having conversations about this stuff in venues like this, is the format lends itself to an actual discussion. But on platforms like twitter, it is very easy for things to get out of hand, for people to get painted as something they are not, and for a person in the industry to become effectively unemployable. I've seen it enough to know it happens. I am sure the folks in this thread who share my concern have also seen it unfold. People are even reluctant to participate in a discussion like this one because of the effect topics like this can have not them in the industry (I speak to people all the time who have my same concerns but would never voice them publicly....and there is a good reason for them to be cautious about it).

I will say I think this is waning. I think it is becoming less of an issue because it has gone on for a number of years, and as with anything like that, people come to understand the criticisms being expressed, while they often invoke alarming language, are actually pointing to fairly mild content. And so I do get the sense it is possible we are emerging into a more open creative environment once again (though with the caveat that it is very hard to discern that kind of trend while it is unfolding).

 

[Clint_L]

The other issue this raises, for me, has to do with appropriate media. Should art explore controversial topics? Yes, I think it should! In fact, I think it is vitally important that it do so! But should all art explore controversial topics? Nah, you gotta pick your contexts. And I don't think D&D is a great venue for exploring complex themes around, say, slavery and eugenics (not that OG Dark Sun really explored those themes in a complex way - it just kind of lays them out there as part of the setting).

Sure, there are some tables where such themes might be considered with the gravitas and contextual nuance they require. But there are also going to be a lot of tables where they don't, and then you can wind up with the optics of young players going, "Woohoo, I'm a racially superior slaver!" Most players don't come to a session to engage in thoughtful art analysis, is all.

These are the kinds of themes that are best left to indie games, for those who seek it out - the RPG equivalent of mature rated films.

 

[MGibster]

If there is a TTRPG about a distopian uchrony style "Man in the High Castle" where nazis won the WWII, could suffer a "moral panic"? Or a G.I.Joe sourcebook about an alternate timeline where world is a global dictatorship under the controll by COBRA?

You bring up GI Joe, but it's interesting how the fiction and toyline changed over the years.

1. 1964 begins the era of America's Movable Fighting Man era of the toy line. The initial line included a US soldier, a sailor, and a pilot who were quite distinctly military men armed with American weapons and equipment.
2. 1970 begins the era of the GI Joe Adventure Team. With the war in Vietnam becoming more contentious, Hasbro decided to emphasize generic action instead of military adventure. This is when you got things like Kung-Fu grip, a bionic Joe, and this was when Hasbro marketed the product as Action Man in the United Kingdom.
3. 1982 sees the launch of my generation's GI Joe line with the 3.75 inch action figures (totally not dolls y'all). GI Joe once again embraces its military origins with each figure coming with a bio that included their name, rank, and their primary and secondary military operational specialties. GI Joe was a counter terrorist group whose primary opponent was Cobra.
4. 1990 sees a shift in GI Joe one again deemphasizing the modern military and going for more generic adventure and even science fiction with their Star Brigade, Ninja Force, and Eco Warriors line of Joe toys.
5. 1994 sees the end of the original 3.75 inch toy line. Not a bad run really.

The point is that GI Joe has constantly changed over the years in response to perceived market forces.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The other issue this raises, for me, has to do with appropriate media. Should art explore controversial topics? Yes, I think it should! In fact, I think it is vitally important that it do so! But should all art explore controversial topics? Nah, you gotta pick your contexts. And I don't think D&D is a great venue for exploring complex themes around, say, slavery and eugenics (not that OG Dark Sun really explored those themes in a complex way - it just kind of lays them out there as part of the setting).

I 100% agree that while you want media and RPGs to be able to explore controversial topics, not all should. And I would say D&D does exist in this middle territory where it is the biggest game but also has a history that has been open to perhaps not controversial content as much as content that isn't strictly for a young audience (i.e. Ravneloft had elements of sensuality to its and some of its content to highlight the gothic themes---though all fairly tame; Dark Sun was a brutal post apocalyptic world with all that came with that genre, etc). I guess where I am coming from here is I don't necessarily think slavery needs to be that controversial in a game (especially when it is largely drawing on slavery that has existed in earlier periods than US History). I also think, while the core D&D game is meant to be pretty general and probably shouldn't be tackling controversy that much, the whole point of having settings is it creates niches where things like that can be addressed (and I would say Dark Sun was a perfect example of how a mainstream, fairly conservative company was able to put out something that had a lot of challenging themes in it).

Sure, there are some tables where such themes might be considered with the gravitas and contextual nuance they require. But there are also going to be a lot of tables where they don't, and then you can wind up with the optics of young players going, "Woohoo, I'm a racially superior slaver!" Most players don't come to a session to engage in thoughtful art analysis, is all.

"Woohoo, I'm a racially superior slaver" isn't really what Dark Sun is about though. If you read through the narrative of the gazetteer in the boxed set there is a lot of hostility directed at the powerful, like the Sorcerer Kings (who are destroying the world to aggrandize themselves). Yes, you could play a slaver and you could say that, because slavers and slaves exist in the setting, but I don't think that was at all the intention of it.

Also I am not convinced young people can't handle navigating these kinds of optics if you trust them to do so. I've had plenty of conversations with people younger than me who can handle a conversation like this one and how can understand there is a difference between the slavery in something like Dark Sun and the slavery that was used in the US (and also understand that the mere existence of slavery in a setting isn't necessarily a commentary on US racial politics or its history----that these were institutions that existed all over the world and throughout history).

Personally at my table, when it comes to stuff like this, I don't think it adds gravitas. I just think it is important to be able to draw on the range of experience in history, on the range of tropes in the source material to make for an exciting game. In the case of Dark Sun, I think there is a bonus that this also happens to be a setting that rises a little bit above to become something more meaningful (but I think that is rare).

And if tables don't want to handle any of this stuff, that is fine. I am not saying everyone must enjoy X! I just think we are setting the bar pretty low with all the things that have been getting taken off the table in these conversations. Keep in mind this is just one piece of a much larger discussion that includes removing or revising elements like evil orcs, tropes perceived to be colonialist like going into a dungeon, killing things and getting treasure (arguably the heart of what D&D is), etc. For me I am viewing this conversation in the context of all the conversations we've had about this, where I think there are a lot of people, who may be very well intentioned, leading us down a path that is not going to produce better games and even make good gaming near impossible to have.

These are the kinds of themes that are best left to indie games, for those who seek it out - the RPG equivalent of mature rated films.

I don't think Dark Sun is mature content though. I bought the boxed set in 1991, so I must have been like 14 or 15. It wasn't anything I couldn't have seen on TV during the day. More brutal than Dragonlance, but it isn't like it was the 1979 version of Caligula. It was content you would have encountered if you read any fantasy literature at that time.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I don't see why they can get POC lead and a bunch of POC contributors to reimagine the setting while staying true to the story and the vibe. I don't think there need to be "world-shaking events" and tons of ret-cons, just don't mention slavery and focus on allowing the POC creators to put their lived experience into reinvigorating in the world for a modern audience. Of course, it would still have to go through close sensitivity reading, but they could tap the employees and freelancers who worked on the Radiant Citadel product from last year to shepherd it through the writing process.

Also put those creators front and center in the promotion of the product and possibly do short weekly design and development with the Dark Sun theme to talk about what they are doing and why they are doing it. That is a good way to screen out any accidentally problematic issues with lore like they had with the Hadozee. It also builds up a lot more anticipation than the "dropped off in the middle of the night around back" that seemed to happen with Dragonlance adventure last year.

 

[Hussar]

Creating and fostering an atmosphere where creative people are regularly in fear that their ideas will lead to public condemnation, directly leading to less variety as RPG makers trend towards the least offensive thing they can think of because anything else is too dangerous?  That's a good thing?

Yup.

An atmosphere where facile treatments of serious issues drives people out of the hobby and slams the gate shut is what we had for decades. An atmosphere where any criticism was swept under the rug or ignored is what we had for decades.

So a change of atmosphere? Yes please.

 

[Hussar]

So a single hypothetical book being released with content you personally find exclusionary, means you are excluded from the hobby. The whole hobby, despite there being more content that you (I assume) dont find exclusionary than you can likely consume in a lifetime?

Yes. Because it is only ever “just one book”.

It’s kinda like saying because there is only one turd in the pool, we should all be happy swimming there.

 

[Scribe]

Yes. Because it is only ever “just one book”.

It’s kinda like saying because there is only one turd in the pool, we should all be happy swimming there.

We have been discussing it with the framing of 'one book' yes. The discussion was then shifted to cover the historical catalog which is goal post shifting, but thats fine. So I guess the position is "Bad content was provided before, and even if Wizards tries to do better, its actually something they just should never do because they messed up before in a different era when it wasnt even Wizards."

Which...is not exactly refuting what some of us are saying.

Your position is more like 'There was one in a pool, so I'm never going back and I'm being kept out'.

This is again you equating content you dont want, with something EVERYONE doesnt want as if its the only correct answer which is as always an amusing way to present an opinion as being the only correct option (who wants that in a pool am I right?) but I'll mentally frame it as your opinion as I'm being told that is what we should assume everyone's statements are, and an analogy that just doesnt quite work.

Maybe try a Pineapple one instead.

 

[Hussar]

And we’re back to the name calling portion of the program. “Moral panic” indeed. Nice to see how people being specific and trying to deal with specific issues are swept under the rug with comments of “don’t like it don’t play it” and then dehumanized and vilified by calling critics irrational (which is what panic means).

Good talk.