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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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



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.



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.

The implication here is that liking old media with problematic elements (and remember we're using your definition where all that matters is that  someone might have a problem with it) is ok as long as you are doing so in spite of those things, and you darn well better make that clear to anyone listening lest they get the wrong idea. A culture of fear and persecution practically by definition.

The common definition of problematic is far too broad to be useful.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

And this is something I didn't like about conservatism growing up (for the record here I am not a conservative, but I am religious and don't have anything against Pope Benedict XVI or against Pope Francis---I think both men contributed different things that the church needed). I have nothing against conservatives personally. I like to be friends with a wide variety of people who hold a range of viewpoints, but growing up what I remember is how the world was opening up in terms of artistic expression and freedom of thought. How we were living int he wake of the 60s and that ushered in a lot of open mindedness around religion, philosophy, film, and entertainment. It wasn't a straight line of course, there was a backlash in the 80s (and to be fair here, I enjoy a lot of the media that was a product of that backlash even if I disagree with many of the ideas in them). But it loosened up again in the 90s. I think we are much better off when we are less judgmental of people, when we are more open to free expression of ideas and debate. Somehow it feels like an element of the right and left have aligned to narrow what is permissible.

But I will say, public shaming in my view is terrible. It really does ruin lives and it is usually more about optics than the truth (especially when it is driven by large groups spontaneously as you see in social media platforms). But an understanding of the history of this social tool, I think reveals it to be one of the worst and most abused we could possibly rely on. I also don't think it works. It does not make people change. It is simply too emotion and optic driven to really be an honest tool. And it gives people license to behave with cruelty while also claiming to be moral. I am very much in the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' camp.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Not at all. It would be immediately obvious what a hypothetical reaction to a "true to source" would be about.

Slavery in 2023? Nope.
Eugenics? Nope.
A bunch of exposed skin? Nope.

That's the easy scatching the surface.

They would be angry it's done at all.

I mean you know it happens here, I shouldn't have to name drop when you are in liking the same posts that do this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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 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.



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.

The thing is, not everyone feels the same way as you, and your passion doesn't make your opinions on these matters more objectively true. Neither does mine, or literally anyone else's. Like @Bedrockgames said, we have to agree to disagree.

 

[Alzrius]

And no one has said anyone is a bad person simply for liking old media.

Well that's clearly not true:

Right now, we've got https://www.kickstarter.com/project...hu-solitaire-gamebooks-by-steve-jackson-games Choose Cthulhu Gamebooks as a kickstarter. It's got over a thousand followers before it's even launched. We all know Lovecraft was a horrible person and that his writings are racist. This isn't up for debate. This is full on fact. How welcome do you think I feel in the hobby knowing that over a thousand people in the hobby want pay someone for Lovecraft's works?

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I have to step out, and I do want to get to your other points, but I do want to say I am not concern trolling. I am expressing my genuine opinion about these topics as they've emerged in a hobby I work in and care about (been playing since 1986). I think when you just dismiss people who disagree with your positions as trolls, you start ignoring large swaths of opinion that are out there. And my opinions are pretty mild to be honest. If this is trolling to you, then I don't know what I can say. Most of my positions are fairly left of center, in some instances even further left than people calling for stuff to be taken down (and I only mention left, because right seems to be the issue for a lot of posters here).

 

[Parmandur]

And this is something I didn't like about conservatism growing up (for the record here I am not a conservative, but I am religious and don't have anything against Pope Benedict XVI or against Pope Francis---I think both men contributed different things that the church needed). I have nothing against conservatives personally. I like to be friends with a wide variety of people who hold a range of viewpoints, but growing up what I remember is how the world was opening up in terms of artistic expression and freedom of thought. How we were living int he wake of the 60s and that ushered in a lot of open mindedness around religion, philosophy, film, and entertainment. It wasn't a straight line of course, there was a backlash in the 80s (and to be fair here, I enjoy a lot of the media that was a product of that backlash even if I disagree with many of the ideas in them). But it loosened up again in the 90s. I think we are much better off when we are less judgmental of people, when we are more open to free expression of ideas and debate. Somehow it feels like an element of the right and left have aligned to narrow what is permissible.

But I will say, public shaming in my view is terrible. It really does ruin lives and it is usually more about optics than the truth (especially when it is driven by large groups spontaneously as you see in social media platforms). But an understanding of the history of this social tool, I think reveals it to be one of the worst and most abused we could possibly rely on. I also don't think it works. It does not make people change. It is simply too emotion and optic driven to really be an honest tool. And it gives people license to behave with cruelty while also claiming to be moral. I am very much in the 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone' camp.

Funny how a generational perspective changes: I was born in 1985, and I welcome the raising of social standards.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

Of course WotC worries about that, but their priority is the new generation. And that problem also happens with the rest of settings.

I have suggested in the past the option of alternate continuities or parallel timelines.

Other reason for the delay is if Hasbro wants D&D to be a multimedia franchise, then they have to talk with the movie producers to check what retcons or changed details are necessary. Maybe the screenwritters, people with higher profesional level, suggest new ideas, and someones are enough good.

And the metaplot is a double edged sword, because a good story helps to sell more, but also it starts to limit the actions by the other players, because if you want to follow the canon, then some things have to happen, but other don't.

Some things only need to be rewritten, for example the origin of the muls is not forced breeding, but genetic engineering, and muls can breed, but it is more difficult without the right "help" (medic therapy).

* Maybe a young adult player likes a daylight grimm tone to his stories, but a 12y player would rather more space for the hope. In my opinion the sorcerer-kings are going to fall, but not thanks a little group of heroes who save the day, but after a lot of blood, sweat and tears.

* DS may have got some elements seen as problematic for the standars of the current "sensibilities", but Warhammer 40.000 is grimmer and I don't see anybody reclaiming its cancelation.

Slave

Slavery is a common occurrence in the Known World and has been found among numerous civilisations throughout history. Slavery is widespread among the barbaric tribes that worship the Dark Gods. Among the people aligned to Order, it is a common view to regard all servants of chaos as slaves in...

warhammerfantasy.fandom.com

Pit Slaves - Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum

wh40k.lexicanum.com

* There is slavery in the Athasian city-states because usually there is in all the evil empires of the D&D multiverse.

 

[Parmandur]

The implication here is that liking old media with problematic elements (and remember we're using your definition where all that matters is that  someone might have a problem with it) is ok as long as you are doing so in spite of those things, and you darn well better make that clear to anyone listening lest they get the wrong idea. A culture of fear and persecution practically by definition.

The common definition of problematic is far too broad to be useful.

I mean, yes, it is very possible to enjoy works like those of Lovecraft, bit it is also very necessary to address the elephants in the room when discussing his work, like his virulent hatred of the Portuguese, Jews, women, etc.

Not addressing that would be irresponsible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Except public shaming has been a pretty consistent tool of enforcing social conformity in ways that not only shatter lives, but strip people of their agency and ability to freely express who they are and what they believe. I mean I am not accusing you of using this as a tactic, but I was responding to a poster who said quite clearly they fully supported the return of public shaming. I don't care if it is being used to decry people who like old sword and sorcery tropes or if it is being use to humiliate a woman believed to have violated some rule of propriety in Colonial New England, it is a bad tool for social control with a long, long history of abuse.

And I will say, there is shunning in the game community for these kinds of things and other perceived offenses. I have seen it, and have been on the receiving end of it. It isn't coming from everyone, and I do think, hopefully, it is starting to wane, but it has unfortunately been a tool people have deployed in debates about games and in controversies surrounding games. It isn't a persecution complex to observe what everyone here can easily see has been happening in the RPG community the past 5-8 years