Kyle Brink: Dark Sun "problematic". Incompatible w "Ethical and Inclusion" standards

[Damon_Tor]

"We have standards today." -Kyle Brink on why Dark Sun can no longer be published.

Personally I'm glad they decided simply to abandon the IP rather than to try to make it fit into their very rigid definition of inclusion. I can't imagine how you would make the setting work with all mention of slavery scrubbed from it.

This also explains the last minute erasure of Athas from the Spelljammer book (early looks included it, but it was removed and replaced before the book was published).

[Telok]

What? They didn't notice that they've already put out the same content with all the FR Underdark stuff? Or does the fact that its underground, matriarchal, and has kink costume art make that OK?

[Dr.Samurai]

I love his implication that previously the company had no standards lol.

You're not fooling anyone Kyle. You're afraid of the Twitter mob. We get it. We'd be more upset if you guys didn't totally screw the pooch with Spelljammer. Now we're all just sort of relieved.

[Damon_Tor]

We'd be more upset if you guys didn't totally screw the pooch with Spelljammer. Now we're all just sort of relieved.

That's 100% how I feel. I give them credit for this at least: he said "we couldn't do justice to the original work" and that's a level of awareness that we should applaud. If they fell they simply cannot depict slavery in any way shape or form, then yes, Athas should simply be left alone.

[Oramac]

I give them credit for this at least: he said "we couldn't do justice to the original work" and that's a level of awareness that we should applaud.

I'll agree with that*.


* This whole inclusion and ethics standards thing is pure unadulterated bull**** in every sense of the word. It's a post-apocalyptic fantasy world, for cryin out loud. If people can't tell the difference, that's their own ****ing problem.

[Atranen]

Was there a new interview that this quote is from?

[LibraryOgre]

Personally I'm glad they decided simply to abandon the IP rather than to try to make it fit into their very rigid definition of inclusion. I can't imagine how you would make the setting work with all mention of slavery scrubbed from it.


To be honest, I do not think slavery has ever been the problem. If you look in the Monster Manual, slavery is EVERYWHERE, and a core part of Dark Sun has always been "Slavery sucks, let's kill all the slavers." I think you have a lot more problem with the city descriptions, and probably some of the racial ones as well.

The Mod Ogre: Be very careful discussing this; as we know, this is going to touch on political issues, and so be cautious and, if in doubt, don't say anything. Especially since I'm already here, and will probably keep reading the thread, so it won't even necessarily need to be reported.

Unrelated: While this is a Mod Post, the black text isn't. Feel free to -- appropriately -- argue with me about that part

[Psyren]

To be clear, Kyle didn't actually state slavery was the reason (only, or even one of many) that they're leery about DS. In fact, slavery wasn't mentioned at all. The exact quote from the interview was as follows:

Bob the World Builder: "Any potential - and I feel like I expect I know the answer to this - any potential that we would see a revision or republishing of the Dark Sun setting?"

Kyle Brink: "I'll be frank here - the Dark Sun setting is problematic (Bob: "I agree") 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."

BtWB: "Yeah, that's a totally fair point and I think that's already kind of the consensus, people I think just wanted to hear somebody say it."

It's plausible that's one of the "lot of ways" Kyle was thinking of, but nobody but him knows for certain until they release a statement of some kind.

EDIT: This transcript is from Bob's edited version, see this post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654579-Kyle-Brink-Dark-Sun-quot-problematic-quot-Incompatible-w-quot-Ethical-and-Inclusion-quot-standards&p=25721947&viewfull=1#post25721947) for the full transcript.


Was there a new interview that this quote is from?

Quote above sourced from this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smyRYVzB_jQ

Dark Sun bit is at 29:42

[Dr.Samurai]

Was there a new interview that this quote is from?
Yeah with Bob the World Builder on Youtube. I think around the 29:40 mark.

EDIT: Ninja'ed!

[stoutstien]

This is a good thing regardless on what reasoning they put public facing.

They haven't done justice to any setting redux. They all come off as half hearted cash grabs looking to pluck at nostalgia strings.

*RftLW was decent but Baker's other compatible books are leagues ahead*

[Psyren]

I agree Spelljammer was meh, but I thought Ravenloft (both Van Richtens and Strahd) was fantastic. A suite of player options (Lineages, Dark Gifts), a bevy of plothooks, ties to other settings (like the Mourning Rail) and it served as a useful introduction to the unique vagaries of the setting like Darklords and The Mists for new players too. VR is one of the 5e setting books I keep coming back to just to thumb through for ideas.

[stoutstien]

I agree Spelljammer was meh, but I thought Ravenloft (both Van Richtens and Strahd) was fantastic. A suite of player options (Lineages, Dark Gifts), a bevy of plothooks, ties to other settings (like the Mourning Rail) and it served as a useful introduction to the unique vagaries of the setting like Darklords and The Mists for new players too. VR is one of the 5e setting books I keep coming back to just to thumb through for ideas.

Yea ok. I'd give RL *especially the most recent release just for the presentation of the GM tools and game support* a passing grade as well. Probably the best to date as a source book. As a complete setting it still has some basic issues like size, distance, and other basic mistakes.

I think I have some non-related begrudges about it because it's the last book I bought before the who licensing thing.

[Sigreid]

It is best that if they know they can't do justice to an existing IP for any reason that they just set it aside.

[Keltest]

I agree Spelljammer was meh, but I thought Ravenloft (both Van Richtens and Strahd) was fantastic. A suite of player options (Lineages, Dark Gifts), a bevy of plothooks, ties to other settings (like the Mourning Rail) and it served as a useful introduction to the unique vagaries of the setting like Darklords and The Mists for new players too. VR is one of the 5e setting books I keep coming back to just to thumb through for ideas.

I think the nice thing about VR is that it's actually, well, a setting book. Its not just an adventure module dressed up with a little Ravenloft garnish, it fully tells you how to run a game with a Ravenloft feel and with Ravenloft themes, and gives you resources and advice to do so.


As far as Dark Sun goes, they really need to define what is "problematic" here, because frankly the current delivery is just offensive. Implying that the company (and by extension playerbase) didn't have standards beforehand, and that it was Bad Times that we should Get Away From is a really good way to alienate that big fan following that they seem to know exists, to say nothing of offending all the other people who played 1st through 4th edition, and even early 5th.

[Brookshw]

Agreed on RL, it had a few of the more interesting adventure paths I'd love to see updated for 5e.

[Psyren]

I think you have a lot more problem with the city descriptions, and probably some of the racial ones as well.

I'm guessing you can't elaborate too much on this statement here but I'd love to get additional insight (via PM if you prefer that.)


I think the nice thing about VR is that it's actually, well, a setting book. Its not just an adventure module dressed up with a little Ravenloft garnish, it fully tells you how to run a game with a Ravenloft feel and with Ravenloft themes, and gives you resources and advice to do so.

Yes - in case it wasn't clear, I'd much rather have campaign setting books than adventures. Which unfortunately is another reason I'm in less of a hurry for them to do Dark Sun, I think we still have more settings without Kyle's perceived hurdles that they could spend time on instead.

[Theodoxus]

I still don't understand why people insist on updating lore books to the next edition - you end up with weird things like spell plagues and Times of Trouble ala FR, which bugged nearly everyone.

IF you want to play DS or SJ or whatever, do you REALLY need every little monster and NPC updated to current 5E stats? It wouldn't be hard to update the 2E campaign setting for DS to 5E. The hardest part would probably be psionics, since they don't exist in any real capacity for 5E, and I suspect part of the real reason WotC doesn't want to update it (hiding behind 'problematic themes') is the absolute failure they've had trying to create a decent psionic system.

But outside of that, since there's no system already in place, the 2E psionic combat, while wonky and something I never really liked personally, would function just fine for 5E...

[5eNeedsDarksun]

Honestly, I think there are significant issues beyond just the ethical ones.

5e (and most of its customers) are used to a high magic, play on easy, lack of grit, exploration light game. Dark Sun was basically the opposite of that. Adapting both the current set of rules and customers to the traditional Dark Sun model would be a far bigger challenge than it was back in the 2e days.

[Oramac]

IF you want to play DS or SJ or whatever, do you REALLY need every little monster and NPC updated to current 5E stats? It wouldn't be hard to update the 2E campaign setting for DS to 5E.


5e (and most of its customers) are used to a high magic, play on easy, lack of grit, exploration light game. Dark Sun was basically the opposite of that. Adapting both the current set of rules and customers to the traditional Dark Sun model would be a far bigger challenge than it was back in the 2e days.

I played a Dark Sun game in 5e about 2 years ago. The DM was a huge fan of Dark Sun, and basically just ran a 2e campaign using 5e monster blocks. From a player perspective, the adaptation was about as seamless as it can get. I know the DM obviously put in a little extra work, but even then it wasn't that hard to adapt.

[Dr.Samurai]

As far as Dark Sun goes, they really need to define what is "problematic" here, because frankly the current delivery is just offensive. Implying that the company (and by extension playerbase) didn't have standards beforehand, and that it was Bad Times that we should Get Away From is a really good way to alienate that big fan following that they seem to know exists, to say nothing of offending all the other people who played 1st through 4th edition, and even early 5th.
Agreed.

He also says at the end that they know there's a lot of love for Dark Sun but... they have to be responsible. LMAO. Dark Sun fans --> irresponsible and without standards.

I still don't understand why people insist on updating lore books to the next edition - you end up with weird things like spell plagues and Times of Trouble ala FR, which bugged nearly everyone.

IF you want to play DS or SJ or whatever, do you REALLY need every little monster and NPC updated to current 5E stats? It wouldn't be hard to update the 2E campaign setting for DS to 5E. The hardest part would probably be psionics, since they don't exist in any real capacity for 5E, and I suspect part of the real reason WotC doesn't want to update it (hiding behind 'problematic themes') is the absolute failure they've had trying to create a decent psionic system.

But outside of that, since there's no system already in place, the 2E psionic combat, while wonky and something I never really liked personally, would function just fine for 5E...
Each edition brings about new mechanics and implementations of the game. It makes sense to me that if someone really really really likes 5E, and Dark Sun (as irresponsible and shameless as WotC thinks that is), that they would want to see it updated to this cool new edition.

I'm not a game designer. I don't know how to make TTRPGs. They are a company that owns the IP and does this stuff for a living. It's not a crazy expectation to have. Especially when they did it for 4th (the time before standards).

_____________________________

Me: Ok Kyle, that should do it. Switch the boilers on and turn 1 to Master and 2 to Slave.
Kyle Brinks: I can't do that.
Me: Why not?
Kyle Brinks: I have standards today.

[Psyren]

Difficulty in all three pillars is in the hands of the DM, not the setting. If you want a gritty desert survival campaign where resources are scarce and magical answers are unreliable or carry significant drawbacks - you don't need a book with "Dark Sun" on the front to achieve that modality. Blaming 5e players for you not getting that experience is counterproductive when the real issue is a disconnect between your expectations and those of your DM.



Me: Ok Kyle, that should do it. Switch the boilers on and turn 1 to Master and 2 to Slave.
Kyle Brinks: I can't do that.
Me: Why not?
Kyle Brinks: I have standards today.

What is the context of the standards quote? It wasn't part of the Dark Sun discussion with Bob as far as I can tell.

[Keltest]

Difficulty in all three pillars is in the hands of the DM, not the setting. If you want a gritty desert survival campaign where resources are scarce and magical answers are unreliable or carry significant drawbacks - you don't need a book with "Dark Sun" on the front to achieve that modality. Blaming 5e players for you not getting that experience is counterproductive when the real issue is a disconnect between your expectations and those of your DM.

I wouldn't think at this point that it's particularly controversial that the Exploration pillar of 5e is woefully underdeveloped. Blaming the DM for doing a bad job when they aren't given the tools needed to excel seems, well, wrong. And easily the best spot to develop the exploration pillar is in a setting book specifically dedicated to give people stuff to explore.

[Dr.Samurai]

What is the context of the standards quote? It wasn't part of the Dark Sun discussion with Bob as far as I can tell.
The convo goes on a little further after what you provided. He says something like "We have standards today, and we wouldn't be able to do it justice and be inclusive the way we want to be".

I'm paraphrasing but it's something like that.

[Damon_Tor]

I think this showed us what a massive bullet dodge the community defeat of the new OGL really was. That licence gave WotC the authority to impose their view of what is inappropriate on anyone who develops content for the game. Taken together, would this have meant that they would have forced a Dark-Sun-like setting out of business?

[Oramac]

I think this showed us what a massive bullet dodge the community defeat of the new OGL really was. That licence gave WotC the authority to impose their view of what is inappropriate on anyone who develops content for the game. Taken together, would this have meant that they would have forced a Dark-Sun-like setting out of business?

I wasn't planning to bring it up, but this was exactly my take as well.

[Unoriginal]

Someone better inform Kyle they have a module that literally makes you visit Hell and get a full view of all the miseries its inhabitants have to live through.

Well, at least all the miseries on the "war-torn desert with Mad Max machines" level.

[Psyren]

The convo goes on a little further after what you provided. He says something like "We have standards today, and we wouldn't be able to do it justice and be inclusive the way we want to be".

I'm paraphrasing but it's something like that.

Timestamp? Or different interview? The Dark Sun part of BtBW's ended where I ended it in the one I linked.


Someone better inform Kyle they have a module that literally makes you visit Hell and get a full view of all the miseries its inhabitants have to live through.

A module set in Hell and a campaign setting set in Hell are not the same thing.

[Dr.Samurai]

Someone better inform Kyle they have a module that literally makes you visit Hell and get a full view of all the miseries its inhabitants have to live through.

Well, at least all the miseries on the "war-torn desert with Mad Max machines" level.
Dude, using the souls of beings as gasoline while their spirits shriek and scream as they are torn apart is fine.

Using nothing but grit, some chitin armor, and a stone sword to fight oppressive sorcerer kings and liberate the masses is problematic.

#standards

[Brookshw]

I think this showed us what a massive bullet dodge the community defeat of the new OGL really was. That licence gave WotC the authority to impose their view of what is inappropriate on anyone who develops content for the game. Taken together, would this have meant that they would have forced a Dark-Sun-like setting out of business?

/Shrug, I would have preferred a real rebellion with people going out an making their own systems rather than the pathetic attempt we're seeing out of Black Flag so far.



Using nothing but grit, some chitin armor, and a stone sword to fight oppressive sorcerer kings and liberate the masses is problematic.

Gonna hazard a guess that's not the part they had concerns with.

[Segev]

To argue with Mark Hall's black text: Elves, dwarves, orcs, thri kreen, goblins... these are not humans. If non-human races doing bad things makes you (generic "you") think they are racist stereotypes, I will posit that it is quite possible that the writers and the fans of the work saw no such connection whatsoever. A Babylon 5 Centauri activist who proclaims, "Dwarves are smelly, bad-tempered people who hold unreasonable grudges and are unnecessarily and excessively violent about it? Clearly they are a stereotype of the Narns! How offensive that the Narns would be smeared by portraying dwarves as smelly, bad-tempered people who hold unreasonable grudges and are unnecessarily and excessively violent about it!" may not be catching the writers of the fictional dwarves in the racism he think he is.

Now, maybe there's something in Dark Sun that more clearly and explicitly makes the tie to real-world races than I'm aware of - I am not a fan of the work - but I am dubious of the claims, given what I've already seen claimed about D&D and it "not being inclusive."


That said, I'm with those who are pointing out Spelljammer as precedent: given the kwalitee of writing that the current design team seems to find their best when writing to "acceptable standards," aren't you glad they're not going to ruin Dark Sun?

[Damon_Tor]

To be honest, I do not think slavery has ever been the problem. If you look in the Monster Manual, slavery is EVERYWHERE, and a core part of Dark Sun has always been "Slavery sucks, let's kill all the slavers." I think you have a lot more problem with the city descriptions, and probably some of the racial ones as well.

City and racial species descriptions can be tweaked, I would think. They didn't remove Vistani from Ravenloft, after all, they fixed them. They made them less of a stereotype and more nuanced while actually making an effort to infirm those changes with an understanding of Romani culture. Changes on that scale wouldn't fundamentally undermine the themes of the setting.

Your point that slavery is everywhere in the Monster Manual is probably moot: that was published in 2014, while these standards seem to have emerged around 2020 for reasons which most of us understand well enough but can't really be discussed here. At any rate, 2020 is the year they said this (https://dnd.wizards.com/news/diversity-and-dnd). I think if we want to understand what is and isn't considered "inclusive" by their current standards, we have to limit ourselves to sources published after that announcement. Whether or not mentions of slavery survives in the new edition in 2024 remains to be seen.

[Slingbow]

To argue with Mark Hall's black text: Elves, orcs, thri kreen, goblins... these are not humans. If non-human races doing bad things makes you (generic "you") think they are racist stereotypes, I will posit that it is quite possibly not the writers nor the fans of the work who are the ones making racist assumptions. Now, maybe there's something in Dark Sun that more clearly and explicitly makes the tie to real-world races than I'm aware of - I am not a fan of the work - but I am dubious of the claims.


That said, I'm with those who are pointing out Spelljammer as precedent: given the kwalitee of writing that the current design team seems to find their best when writing to "acceptable standards," aren't you glad they're not going to ruin Dark Sun?

"Those crying racist are the real racists!"
I would hazard a guess it started when JrrT said he modeled his non human races after his perspective on real world human races.
Don't start no poop won't be no poop.

[Damon_Tor]

Timestamp? Or different interview? The Dark Sun part of BtBW's ended where I ended it in the one I linked.

The link is a very heavily edited version of the interview. I'll see if I can find something more complete.

EDIT: This guy (https://youtu.be/x_zaF7DzPR0?t=537) includes a more complete clip of the interview starting at 8:56.

[Segev]

"Those crying racist are the real racists!"
I would hazard a guess it started when JrrT said he modeled his non human races after his perspective on real world human races.
Don't start no poop won't be no poop.

Edited my post to make the very specific point I am making more clearly. It is not quite properly characterized by your paraphrased "quote" in your reply. Though the sentiment is there if you ignore all nuance and specificity. REgardless, I don't think I can discuss it in greater detail than that without stepping over the line Mark set with his own post. So I'll leave it with this: I posit that the problem lies not in Dark Sun. (I could be wrong; I'd have to actually study it to see if the depictions are genuinely not of the character I illustrated with my hypothetical Centauri.)

[Unoriginal]

City and racial species descriptions can be tweaked, I would think. They didn't remove Vistani from Ravenloft, after all, they fixed them. They made them less of a stereotype and more nuanced while actually making an effort to infirm those changes with an understanding of Romani culture. Changes on that scale wouldn't fundamentally undermine the themes of the setting.

Your point that slavery is everywhere in the Monster Manual is probably moot: that was published in 2014, while these standards seem to have emerged around 2020 for reasons which most of us understand well enough but can't really be discussed here. At any rate, 2020 is the year they said this (https://dnd.wizards.com/news/diversity-and-dnd). I think if we want to understand what is and isn't considered "inclusive" by their current standards, we have to limit ourselves to sources published after that announcement. Whether or not mentions of slavery survives in the new edition in 2024 remains to be seen.

In the Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse, they literally changed the lore for Duergars being forced into machines as a painful power source. They didn't change the statblock or the art, though, they just said the one suffering the "Matrix, but as designed by the I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream evil computer" fate was volunteering for it sometime.

[Psyren]

I would hazard a guess it started when JrrT said he modeled his non human races after his perspective on real world human races.
Don't start no poop won't be no poop.

And even if Tolkien hadn't outright stated this (or Gygax for that matter) - unconscious coding exists.

Pursuing this path is unlikely to remain safe however so I'll leave it there.


That said, I'm with those who are pointing out Spelljammer as precedent: given the kwalitee of writing that the current design team seems to find their best when writing to "acceptable standards," aren't you glad they're not going to ruin Dark Sun?

I'm not going to defend SJ - though I will point out that at the very least, if you found the book not worth buying apart from the PC races (or even certain PC races), the option to only buy those for much less money does legally exist.

@Damon_Tor: Thanks, I'll listen to the whole thing as soon as I can.

[Dr.Samurai]

Gonna hazard a guess that's not the part they had concerns with.
Gonna hazard a guess that the ratio between "use grit and tenacity to defeat evil and liberate the world" AND "whatever Kyle Brinks and others are concerned about causing problems" is like 99 to 1 in all games of Dark Sun past, present, and future.

As always with vague allegations of something being problematic, the problem exists. But mostly in the eye of the beholder.

Not a real beholder. Well, a problem also exists in the eyes of real beholders too. But I think you know what I'm getting at.

[Segev]

And even if Tolkien hadn't outright stated this (or Gygax for that matter) - unconscious coding exists.

Pursuing this path is unlikely to remain safe however so I'll leave it there.It strongly depends what the "code" is. If dwarves have red eyes, overthrew a ruling race with crested heads, and tend to be named things like "G'kar" and "Natoth," then it's more likely that the dwarves really are 'coded' to be Narns, and then the outrage over "dwarves" doing awful things might be justified.


I'm not going to defend SJ - though I will point out that at the very least, if you found the book not worth buying apart from the PC races (or even certain PC races), the option to only buy those for much less money does legally exist.I'm guessing MPMM?

It doesn't really matter, the races are the least interesting thing to me about Spelljammer. The setting is what interests me the most, and the way it shapes the tools used to traverse it. Phlostigon and crystal spheres being gone is a big deal, and the Astral Plane now being cluttered with Spelljamming as well as its own old material is...:smallyuk:

[LibraryOgre]

To argue with Mark Hall's black text: Elves, dwarves, orcs, thri kreen, goblins... these are not humans. If non-human races doing bad things makes you (generic "you") think they are racist stereotypes, I will posit that it is quite possible that the writers and the fans of the work saw no such connection whatsoever.

What about Draj? Raam? Gulg? Are these populated by non-humans?

I think your logic on the rest is flawed, but to discuss it goes beyond this board's rules.

[Psyren]

It strongly depends what the "code" is.

That it does. Beyond that, I'll go with what Library/Mark said.



I'm guessing MPMM?

No - in DnDBeyond, you can buy specific elements of any sourcebook à la carte, and in doing so gain access to use them in the character builder, sanctioned play like AL etc. So for example if all I want out of Spelljammer is to be able to make a Plasmoid Monk, i can buy Plasmoid on its own for a tiny fraction of SJ list price and ignore the rest.

[Segev]

What about Draj? Raam? Gulg? Are these populated by non-humans?

I think your logic on the rest is flawed, but to discuss it goes beyond this board's rules.

Unfortunately, like I said, I don't actually know the setting, so my suspicions are based on behavior of groups in the (recent) past (which, as said, is a little beyond the board's rules to explain in detail).

Can you give me a rundown of those three cities/realms? Or a link to a good rundown? I don't know enough to know what would be problematic about them at all.

[Xervous]

It would be really nice if one of the interviewers pressed on the “it’s problematic” response for an elaboration in the future, if only to confirm the expected feats of verbal contortion for avoiding the question.

[Brookshw]

Gonna hazard a guess that the ratio between "use grit and tenacity to defeat evil and liberate the world" AND "whatever Kyle Brinks and others are concerned about causing problems" is like 99 to 1 in all games of Dark Sun past, present, and future.

As always with vague allegations of something being problematic, the problem exists. But mostly in the eye of the beholder.

Not a real beholder. Well, a problem also exists in the eyes of real beholders too. But I think you know what I'm getting at.

You had me at real beholder :smallwink:

[Dienekes]

Now, I’ve never read anything in Dark Sun, because, well, I don’t use any of WotC settings. But I’m curious, what do people think are the problematic elements? Slavery exists in D&D currently. Also, you know, was a key part of successful non-industrial economies for most recorded history. So I doubt it’s that.

I see people bringing up cities, and vague comments on the species. But it’s a little light on details. And I’m curious what could make cities so bad.

[stoutstien]

Now, I’ve never read anything in Dark Sun, because, well, I don’t use any of WotC settings. But I’m curious, what do people think are the problematic elements? Slavery exists in D&D currently. Also, you know, was a key part of successful non-industrial economies for most recorded history. So I doubt it’s that.

I see people bringing up cities, and vague comments on the species. But it’s a little light on details. And I’m curious what could make cities so bad.
It's not the existence of <bad stuff> that dark sun has that other don't. It usually the fact, as a setting, it's ok with <bad stuff> at a setting. <Bad> is normalized.

IMO it's not that far down that path it's undoable but not by WoTC

[Dr.Samurai]

It would be really nice if one of the interviewers pressed on the “it’s problematic” response for an elaboration in the future, if only to confirm the expected feats of verbal contortion for avoiding the question.
There is this idea that, so long as the media represents generic western myth/fantasy/whatever, it's fine. You can do whatever you want (though these days everyone likes to see this stuff torn down, deconstructed, and whatever).

But if you take something from another part of the world or culture, then things start to get tricky. There's a notion that you need to speak with people of that culture or region and really immerse yourself in their ways in order to be worthy to take elements from their myths/fantasies and put them in your game. You need to speak with scholars, and make sure there aren't stereotypes and everything is done with some strange level of reverence and almost worship. Otherwise, you're not worthy of using the material and your depiction of it is disrespectful. You have to treat your work basically like these people are your target audience, and the purpose of the work is to venerate their myths.

Given that these cities were mentioned, and they have pyramids and guys named Tectuktitlay walking around, I am thinking maybe that has something to do with it. But this is speculation.

[Damon_Tor]

In the Mordenkainen Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse, they literally changed the lore for Duergars being forced into machines as a painful power source. They didn't change the statblock or the art, though, they just said the one suffering the "Matrix, but as designed by the I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream evil computer" fate was volunteering for it sometime.

But did they make them work on a farm? Making them work on a farm would presumably be a step too far. "Problematic" so to speak.

Dialing down the sarcasm for a bit, the red line is presumably in regards to how closely the treatment of a fantasy species can be analogized to the historic treatment of real ethnic groups. The Matrix isn't real, so they probably feel pretty safe pulling inspiration from it to create an "inclusive atrocity" the can use to show that evil people are evil.

[Slingbow]

It strongly depends what the "code" is.:

Yeah, and we all know what code we are referring to. Nobody's mad about red eye crusty head stereotypes.

[Psyren]

Thanks again to Damon_Tor for the link (minus the constant scoffs from the annoying youtuber drowning out the actual interview, but the dislike I left covered that.) So the full quote was:

Bob the World Builder: "Any potential - and I feel like I expect I know the answer to this - any potential that we would see a revision or republishing of the Dark Sun setting, ever?"

Kyle Brink: "So the 'ever' is the operative word there-"

Bob the World Builder: "I'll forget the 'ever' then and let's just say 'in the next 5 years.'"

Kyle Brink: "I'll be frank here - the Dark Sun setting is problematic (Bob: "I agree") 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, um, 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."

BtWB: "Yeah, that's a totally fair point and I think that's already kind of the consensus, people I think just wanted to hear somebody say it."

Kyle Brink: "We know there's love out there for it, and god we would love to make those people happy, and also we've got to be responsible."

None of that is saying "never" to me, just that they have to be responsible if and when they try. I don't see what's so objectionable about that stance. Especially since they've been burned twice now in two other settings by being hasty.

[Slipjig]

I suspect the halflings probably fall on the problematic side of the line. I remember elves and dwarves being a lot nastier than their traditional cousins, but pretty much EVERYBODY on Athas is hostile to outsiders.

[NichG]

But if you take something from another part of the world or culture, then things start to get tricky. There's a notion that you need to speak with people of that culture or region and really immerse yourself in their ways in order to be worthy to take elements from their myths/fantasies and put them in your game. You need to speak with scholars, and make sure there aren't stereotypes and everything is done with some strange level of reverence and almost worship. Otherwise, you're not worthy of using the material and your depiction of it is disrespectful. You have to treat your work basically like these people are your target audience, and the purpose of the work is to venerate their myths.


Veneration/reverence aside, carefully researching and bringing to light unexpected parts of inspirational background material is generally a good thing, as well as a thoughtful approach to covering those things does generally improve the quality of setting material. Finding some obscure things, unseen perspectives, etc makes there be a lot more for players to discover beyond the things that are already in their heads while still maintaining resonance, totally independent of questions of inclusivity.

I would want to discourage publishers from taking the stance 'its too risky to even try', but I wouldn't want to discourage 'lets try to do it well' as the price for doing so. Messaging-wise I'd want to aim for 'we want to see you trying to do this well even if sometimes you fail' rather than 'we will punish you for even trying'.

[Dr.Samurai]

Veneration/reverence aside, carefully researching and bringing to light unexpected parts of inspirational background material is generally a good thing, as well as a thoughtful approach to covering those things does generally improve the quality of setting material. Finding some obscure things, unseen perspectives, etc makes there be a lot more for players to discover beyond the things that are already in their heads while still maintaining resonance, totally independent of questions of inclusivity.

I would want to discourage publishers from taking the stance 'its too risky to even try', but I wouldn't want to discourage 'lets try to do it well' as the price for doing so. Messaging-wise I'd want to aim for 'we want to see you trying to do this well even if sometimes you fail' rather than 'we will punish you for even trying'.
I'm for this as well. Of course if they're going to do something, do it right.

But I'm speaking to people weaponizing this notion which results in what you're speaking to; people not even wanting to bother trying because it's too risky.

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

[Damon_Tor]

Now, I’ve never read anything in Dark Sun, because, well, I don’t use any of WotC settings. But I’m curious, what do people think are the problematic elements? Slavery exists in D&D currently. Also, you know, was a key part of successful non-industrial economies for most recorded history. So I doubt it’s that.

The hard line against slavery depictions seems most evident in how they tripped over themselves to scrub it from Spelljammer, even issuing errata to remove mentions of slavery in the backstories of one of that book's species. And Thri-Kreen are given no backstory at all, presumably to avoid mentioning Athas (which can be confirmed as included by early images but was later removed prior to publishing.)

When the new edition comes out next year, I'd be willing to bet that there's almost no mention of slavery in any form which can be seen as remotely similar to historical examples. Certain "role reversals" may be allowed to exist, for example the drow using males as slaves. It's all speculation of course, but I'll note that months ago now I made this exact prediction about Dark Sun, and lo and behold I am confirmed correct. We'll see what happens.

[Oramac]

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

This is the part that irks me. There is no new material out there; just new ways of telling old stories. This statement has been more or less agreed upon by many (non-TTRPG) creative communities for decades. Where the hell else are we supposed to get inspiration? Last I checked, we haven't discovered another alien world out there, so the only place we got is the world we're on. Telling me I can't take inspiration from because it [I]MIGHT offend someone is insane.

[Psyren]

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

I can't speak to this question specifically because I have no idea who the "certain people" and "others" are in your comment, but I just want to point out that WotC freely deciding not to publish something does not mean and has never meant that it can't be shown by anyone else. You can't do it using their IP of course (without permission), but their IP is not the totality of ways to depict a concept or subject.

[Damon_Tor]

I'm for this as well. Of course if they're going to do something, do it right.

But I'm speaking to people weaponizing this notion which results in what you're speaking to; people not even wanting to bother trying because it's too risky.

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

I think the "correct" answer to this is the Rick Riordan solution: his "Percy Jackson" setting is one where all myths and legends are real in some way or another, but he doesn't write the novels that deal with non-European folklore himself, instead he gets authors who are descended from those peoples to tell those stores and he uses his platform to amplify them.

To follow that model, WotC could either hire a team with specific ethnic backgrounds to create these products, or they could work with another publisher staffed by such persons.

[Slingbow]

I'm for this as well. Of course if they're going to do something, do it right.

But I'm speaking to people weaponizing this notion which results in what you're speaking to; people not even wanting to bother trying because it's too risky.

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?
Yep, it's a frustrating misdirected correction to a legit problem.

[NichG]

I'm for this as well. Of course if they're going to do something, do it right.

But I'm speaking to people weaponizing this notion which results in what you're speaking to; people not even wanting to bother trying because it's too risky.

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

Well it's as you originally said - talk to people, research the history of cultures, etc. I'd add to do nuanced depictions that borrow from many different inspirations and viewpoints and which raise hard questions rather than present easy answers.

It's not like that will necessarily protect you from controversy in practice, but regardless of that it's what you should do anyhow to make interesting settings.

Like, Pillars of Eternity 2 does this really well and takes a lot of risks in the process, but is pretty well regarded. It depicts a native island culture with a rigid caste system and self-destructive traditions that is nevertheless indigenous and defending itself from both economic and military colonial forces. Yet at the same time, none of those three cultures are presented as homogenous - there are attempts to reform broken aspects of the caste system from some NPCs while others double down, there are different factions within each of the colonial forces that have different views of how to relate to the indigenous population. There are no unmitigated good guys or bad guys, just lots of complex choices with tradeoffs.

Super risky, but they took enough care that it didn't blow up in their face. And it was far better than if they had either taken no risk or had just slapped down some quick stereotypes and called it done.

[Unoriginal]

But did they make them work on a farm? Making them work on a farm would presumably be a step too far. "Problematic" so to speak.

Dialing down the sarcasm for a bit, the red line is presumably in regards to how closely the treatment of a fantasy species can be analogized to the historic treatment of real ethnic groups. The Matrix isn't real

I was just using the Matrix as an example of "machine uses an humanoid as power source", I don't think there is any inspiration from that work.



so they probably feel pretty safe pulling inspiration from it to create an "inclusive atrocity" the can use to show that evil people are evil.

But that's the thing, they *stopped* using that to show that evil people are evil.


The text I'm talking about, in the Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes:


Duergar Hammerer
The hammerer is a digging machine with a duergar strapped inside it—typically a punishment for those whose work ethic wavers. The machine's mechanism transforms the captive duergar's pain into energy that powers the device, which is typically used to dig tunnels and repel invaders.

Now in the Mordenkainen's Presents: Monsters of the Multiverse:



Duergar Hammerer
The duergar hammerer is a digging machine and siege engine, used to dig tunnels and besiege enemy fortifications.

Duergar Constructs
Creative duergar engineers have built numerous war machines, including some that can be fused with a duergar. Such a duergar-machine hybrid is fueled by the duergar's psionic energy, and the duergar inside the machine can psychically channel pain into power when attacked.

These machines are deployed to assist with construction projects and war. Some duergar bravely volunteer to become hybrids, while other duergar are forced into the fusion by Underdark tyrants. Unless incapacitated, the duergar inside a machine can extricate themself from it over the course of a short rest, completing the process at the rest's end.

Both statblock have an ability called "Engine of Pain", although they don't work exactly the same way.

[strangebloke]

Thanks again to Damon_Tor for the link (minus the constant scoffs from the annoying youtuber drowning out the actual interview, but the dislike I left covered that.) So the full quote was:

Bob the World Builder: "Any potential - and I feel like I expect I know the answer to this - any potential that we would see a revision or republishing of the Dark Sun setting, ever?"

Kyle Brink: "So the 'ever' is the operative word there-"

Bob the World Builder: "I'll forget the 'ever' then and let's just say 'in the next 5 years.'"

Kyle Brink: "I'll be frank here - the Dark Sun setting is problematic (Bob: "I agree") 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, um, 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."

BtWB: "Yeah, that's a totally fair point and I think that's already kind of the consensus, people I think just wanted to hear somebody say it."

Kyle Brink: "We know there's love out there for it, and god we would love to make those people happy, and also we've got to be responsible."

None of that is saying "never" to me, just that they have to be responsible if and when they try. I don't see what's so objectionable about that stance. Especially since they've been burned twice now in two other settings by being hasty.

I wouldn't characterize WotC as 'hasty' wrt content lol but I agree with your assessment overall.. The general impression I get is that the teams working on this are small and don't have as many resources as they should and consequently tend to just kind of fumble the delivery. With this being the case I can understand said team being averse to taking on something challenging like reimagining a beloved legacy setting that has a tone very distinct from the current version of the game.

Though FWIW I think they overestimate how 'problematic' these old settings are. Its pretty easy to dispense with troublesome coding if you know what you're doing.

[Segev]

Y'know, I can't help but think that maybe WotC's current writing crew should try their hand at developing a new D&D setting. One that is the all-inclusive, shining beacon of upright values they want it to be. If all the existing properties are so problematic, the best place to start with removing problematic elements would be by writing a wholly new thing that is devoid of them. Nobody would be upset over the trashing of their favorite setting. Nobody would be excluded by accidentally leaving in some sort of offensive thing that the less-pure prior generations of authors might've slipped in that the inclusive and virtuous authors of today might accidentally miss in their cleansing of the work. It would be new. It would be creative. It would be inclusive. It would demonstrate all the virtues of the new direction, and have none of the baggage of the past.

[Dr.Samurai]

This is the part that irks me. There is no new material out there; just new ways of telling old stories. This statement has been more or less agreed upon by many (non-TTRPG) creative communities for decades. Where the hell else are we supposed to get inspiration? Last I checked, we haven't discovered another alien world out there, so the only place we got is the world we're on. Telling me I can't take inspiration from because it [I]MIGHT offend someone is insane.

Yep, it's a frustrating misdirected correction to a legit problem.
Agreed and agreed.

I think it makes sense to check that the work isn't degrading or... let's say one-note. But I also think this approach pushes us in another direction, see below response to NichG.

I think the "correct" answer to this is the Rick Riordan solution: his "Percy Jackson" setting is one where all myths and legends are real in some way or another, but he doesn't write the novels that deal with non-European folklore himself, instead he gets authors who are descended from those peoples to tell those stores and he uses his platform to amplify them.

To follow that model, WotC could either hire a team with specific ethnic backgrounds to create these products, or they could work with another publisher staffed by such persons.
I'm not a fan of this honestly. I think I can write medieval European fantasy or Greek or Norse for that matter, and my parents are both from the Caribbean. There's also the part where people meme their own lore and fantasies. Like, it's bizarre to me that I can consume a bunch of manga and anime, but if I were to try and lean into some eastern inspirations for Sarlona in Eberron, suddenly the magnifying glass comes out and it's heavily critiqued on these grounds.

And so you just wind up with "Eberron is totally cosmopolitan, in a mostly western european way but we also include samurais and ninjas here". And then everyone pats themselves on the back for not making Sarlona into Fantasy Asia, but then we really don't have anything from those lores and traditions except the most basic and common archetype that's been done to death.

But in the end, this approach sort of defeats the purpose in my opinion, and belies a notion that no one can handle the culture/lore unless they have some tie to it. And I don't agree with that.

Well it's as you originally said - talk to people, research the history of cultures, etc. I'd add to do nuanced depictions that borrow from many different inspirations and viewpoints and which raise hard questions rather than present easy answers.
I think this is my primary issue with all the comments so far. This treatment transforms the medium into something else. We're playing a roleplaying game where, traditionally, you raid dungeons, fight monsters, and loot treasure.

It's not inherently super nuanced or designed to raise hard questions. But because we are including more stuff, suddenly now the medium has to change to something else. Something heavier and far more thoughtful. But not thoughtful about in-game actions, thoughtful about how you approach the game itself now.

We're all wondering how we can do this right, meanwhile this much thought hasn't gone into portraying European fantasy in D&D in decades.

@Segev: Isn't that what the overwhelmingly popular and successful smash hit Radiant Citadel is?

[Oramac]

Though FWIW I think they overestimate how 'problematic' these old settings are. Its pretty easy to dispense with troublesome coding if you know what you're doing.

I really don't get what WOTC is saying. Just copy/paste the old DS stuff into your 5e book, proofread it to make sure the rules references match 5e rules, and boom. Done. They have to have people proof read new books anyway, so it's not like they'd be doing something they don't already do.


Y'know, I can't help but think that maybe WotC's current writing crew should try their hand at developing a new D&D setting. One that is the all-inclusive, shining beacon of upright values they want it to be. If all the existing properties are so problematic, the best place to start with removing problematic elements would be by writing a wholly new thing that is devoid of them. Nobody would be upset over the trashing of their favorite setting. Nobody would be excluded by accidentally leaving in some sort of offensive thing that the less-pure prior generations of authors might've slipped in that the inclusive and virtuous authors of today might accidentally miss in their cleansing of the work. It would be new. It would be creative. It would be inclusive. It would demonstrate all the virtues of the new direction, and have none of the baggage of the past.

And the setting would be hilariously dull and boring. Yep, I agree. WOTC should do this, so that [hopefully] they learn their lesson.


@Segev: Isn't that what the overwhelmingly popular and successful smash hit Radiant Citadel is?

LMAO.

[Segev]

@Segev: Isn't that what the overwhelmingly popular and successful smash hit Radiant Citadel is?

That doesn't sound like a setting so much as a single location, but maybe? I haven't heard of it, which may be an advertising fail by WotC.

[NichG]

I think this is my primary issue with all the comments so far. This treatment transforms the medium into something else. We're playing a roleplaying game where, traditionally, you raid dungeons, fight monsters, and loot treasure.

It's not inherently super nuanced or designed to raise hard questions. But because we are including more stuff, suddenly now the medium has to change to something else. Something heavier and far more thoughtful. But not thoughtful about in-game actions, thoughtful about how you approach the game itself now.

We're all wondering how we can do this right, meanwhile this much thought hasn't gone into portraying European fantasy in D&D in decades.


Other properties did give a lot of thought into European fantasy than D&D though, and IMO at least created more interesting settings (game mechanics aside) in the process. 7th Sea's Thea for example. Or even treatments like the old CRPG Lionheart. I'd take those over, say, Krynn.

With D&D everyone I played with tended to just make their own settings if doing 'general medieval fantasy' and only used existing properties for the exotic - Dark Sun, Planescape usually; never actually had anyone use Spelljammer tbh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And the setting would be hilariously dull and boring. Yep, I agree. WOTC should do this, so that [hopefully] they learn their lesson.


And would still offend some people. Why? Because offense isn't determined by the contents alone (or even primarily). It's determined freely by the reader. Those looking to take offense will find reasons to be offended. Those not looking to take offense...generally won't unless it's FATAL levels.

[Dr.Samurai]

That doesn't sound like a setting so much as a single location, but maybe? I haven't heard of it, which may be an advertising fail by WotC.
Behold and journey to the Radiant Citadel! (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/journeys-through-radiant-citadel)

[LibraryOgre]

Unfortunately, like I said, I don't actually know the setting, so my suspicions are based on behavior of groups in the (recent) past (which, as said, is a little beyond the board's rules to explain in detail).

Can you give me a rundown of those three cities/realms? Or a link to a good rundown? I don't know enough to know what would be problematic about them at all.

I think this level of specificity is something that needs to be avoided. I will say that the parallels aren't hard to miss.


It's not the existence of <bad stuff> that dark sun has that other don't. It usually the fact, as a setting, it's ok with <bad stuff> at a setting. <Bad> is normalized.

IMO it's not that far down that path it's undoable but not by WoTC

Honestly, I don't think that's the case at all. Dark Sun may present the world as being filled with slavery, oppression, and ecological disaster, but those are pretty much always presented as things to struggle against. The Verdant Passage, the first novel, is about overthrowing a sorcerer-king and ending slavery in a city.

The Monster Manual for 5e is FILLED with slavery. There are several races that are said to eat other sophonts. There are dark gods, there are people with powers given by fiends and eldritch powers from beyond. All sorts of difficult things are part of D&D already... but they're presented as things to be struggled against.

[Oramac]

And would still offend some people. Why? Because offense isn't determined by the contents alone (or even primarily). It's determined freely by the reader. Those looking to take offense will find reasons to be offended. Those not looking to take offense...generally won't unless it's FATAL levels.

Lol. I've read the FATAL rulebook. Personally, I found it hilarious and entertaining. But yea, most people wouldn't get past the table of contents. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Lol. I've read the FATAL rulebook. Personally, I found it hilarious and entertaining. But yea, most people wouldn't get past the table of contents. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah. I've got a thick skin. Would I play FATAL? Heck no. But am I offended it exists? Only that someone wasted their time like that. But I feel that same way about a lot of things, including 90+% of popular culture.

Setting your target at "no one is offended" guarantees both failure and boring mush. And saying that people can only write what they know is, to me, a crime against creativity. None of us could write about orcs and elves and dragons because we don't come from that culture. Fantasy is built around writing things that you're not part of (inherently, since we all live in the real world, despite trying to deny that fact sometimes).

And sensitivity readers don't help--they can't speak (justifiably) for the whole culture. They can only speak for themselves. Because that's not a thing. Cultures don't have officially-appointed spokespersons. Countries might, but each country has a bucket-load of cultures and cultures are constantly shifting. And even if they could speak for an entire culture...people can and do still get offended about things that their "culture" (which culture? Most people are part of many many microcultures) doesn't care about. Or vice versa, are fine with things their culture doesn't like.

Designers and writers should have
a) a clear vision of their product
b) a clear vision of their intended audience
and then craft stuff that works for those two groups. And no, "everyone" isn't a clear vision of an intended audience. Because "pleases everyone (or at least doesn't offend anyone)" isn't a satisfiable set of constraints.

[BRC]

Agreed and agreed.

I think it makes sense to check that the work isn't degrading or... let's say one-note. But I also think this approach pushes us in another direction, see below response to NichG.

I'm not a fan of this honestly. I think I can write medieval European fantasy or Greek or Norse for that matter, and my parents are both from the Caribbean. There's also the part where people meme their own lore and fantasies. Like, it's bizarre to me that I can consume a bunch of manga and anime, but if I were to try and lean into some eastern inspirations for Sarlona in Eberron, suddenly the magnifying glass comes out and it's heavily critiqued on these grounds.

And so you just wind up with "Eberron is totally cosmopolitan, in a mostly western european way but we also include samurais and ninjas here". And then everyone pats themselves on the back for not making Sarlona into Fantasy Asia, but then we really don't have anything from those lores and traditions except the most basic and common archetype that's been done to death.

But in the end, this approach sort of defeats the purpose in my opinion, and belies a notion that no one can handle the culture/lore unless they have some tie to it. And I don't agree with that.


My understanding is that there are a few angles to it.

1) Respect and Not Screwing Things Up. There's a lot of cultures out there with a lot of different folklore and inspirations, some of which is just fun stories for kids, and some of which is actually deeply important.

If you're coming from a perspective within the culture in question, you're going to, probably without thinking about it, treat those traditions with the appropriate respect. If you're from outside that culture, then people are, not unreasonably, going to be wanting to check your work.

For example, let's say you encounter a myth about a cave-dwelling monster that uses a spear with a pet snake wrapped around it, so the snake bites whoever it stabs. "Cool Monster!" You think to yourself, so you throw some into your setting as generic killable baddies. It turns out that myth is symbolically important to it's culture of origin, maybe that creature with it's snake-spear is seen as a protector or mythologized ancestor to the people. Now you've taken that and reduced it to "Scary Thing that needs killing".

TTRPGs are especially prone to this, because what they generally need is a ready supply of "Scary Things That Need Killing". While it's certainly possible to draw inspiration from or create a fictionalized version of a real culture without causing offense, ensuring that you have not done so is difficult, hence the reliance on cultural consultants and people from that culture. T

This also all applies to ideas around avoiding the reproduction of negative stereotypes.

2) You've got the economic angle of Cultural Appropriation in one of the original uses of the term, taking something from a culture and reaping the benefits of that creation. This angle gets a lot murkier than "Don't insult somebody's important heritage and/or re-create stereotypes", but the general idea is that there's some degree where people from a culture Deserve to be the ones telling that culture's stories in a new medium, rather than some outsider seeing it, thinking "Neat!" and grabbing it. This is a lot less relevant to this discussion, but it can certainly come up sometimes.





But in the end, this approach sort of defeats the purpose in my opinion, and belies a notion that no one can handle the culture/lore unless they have some tie to it. And I don't agree with that.

I think this is my primary issue with all the comments so far. This treatment transforms the medium into something else. We're playing a roleplaying game where, traditionally, you raid dungeons, fight monsters, and loot treasure.

It's not inherently super nuanced or designed to raise hard questions. But because we are including more stuff, suddenly now the medium has to change to something else. Something heavier and far more thoughtful. But not thoughtful about in-game actions, thoughtful about how you approach the game itself now.

We're all wondering how we can do this right, meanwhile this much thought hasn't gone into portraying European fantasy in D&D in decades.


I'd say that classic Western Fantasy, while certainly Analogous to a lot of cultural folklores, isn't quite in the same boat. While it takes some inspiration from various mythologies and folklores, it was generated by people FROM those folklores and, for the most part, has grown into a giant self-referential mess of it's own. Seeing as it was created largely for the purpose of consumption in exactly these sorts of works, it's a reliably safe well to draw on without fearing that you've accidentally turned a beloved cultural icon into another Scary Thing What Needs To Be Killed.

The "Problematic" aspects of using Western High Fantasy folklore usually come down to the idea of "Fantasy Races" and creating a world where the racist belief that "Some people are inheriently dumb/cruel/evil" is true.

[KorvinStarmast]

What? They didn't notice that they've already put out the same content with all the FR Underdark stuff? Or does the fact that its underground, matriarchal, and has kink costume art make that OK? Apparently, it does. *eyeroll*

You're not fooling anyone Kyle. You're afraid of the Twitter mob. Ya think? But they managed to make DS in 4e. Hmm.

They all come off as half hearted cash grabs looking to pluck at nostalgia strings. You can argue that the whole of 5th edition is just that. :smallwink:

5e (and most of its customers) are used to a high magic, play on easy, lack of grit, exploration light game. Dark Sun was basically the opposite of that. Curse of Strahd is also the opposite of a lot of 5e ... and yet it was published.

He also says at the end that they know there's a lot of love for Dark Sun but... they have to be responsible. LMAO. Dark Sun fans --> irresponsible and without standards. He appears to be tone deaf.

Someone better inform Kyle they have a module that literally makes you visit Hell and get a full view of all the miseries its inhabitants have to live through. Well, at least all the miseries on the "war-torn desert with Mad Max machines" level. He's bucking for a promotion, and will soon be in another job. That's my guess.

Dude, using the souls of beings as gasoline while their spirits shriek and scream as they are torn apart is fine. Using nothing but grit, some chitin armor, and a stone sword to fight oppressive sorcerer kings and liberate the masses is problematic.
#standards Giggle.

But my best takeaway is "they won't do it justice because they won't put in the effort" because a lot of what they have put out is uneven, at best, in quality and some just bad. (The SJ example being a good case in point). If they are going to mail it in anyway ... Yeah, don't bother.

[Ionathus]

Also, I find it a bit OTHERING as well that certain people can have games and stories told about their lore, while others have to be treated with a strange sort of delicateness, because of an implied fragility. It borders on the condescending and offensive. And it leaves us in a very strange place; how can we depict things like desert cultures and pyramids and the like? Only in ways that do not map to RL examples? So it has to be Opposite World in order to get by this? What is the workaround here, never show it?

The general consensus I see in the writing circles I run in is that you should "write what you know." Western Europeans (and their New World colonial offshoots) are familiar with Western European Fantasy tropes, because it's what they were raised on for centuries. Early D&D was written (IIRC) entirely by this demographic, so that's what they put in the first settings. They were writing what they knew. Western-style dragons, knights on horseback, French chivalry, wizards what look like Gandalf (who was himself modeled after earlier European mythological figures).

If you're part of that Group A, and you're adapting stories that are familiar to Group A, and your audience is also Group A, then there's a very low chance you're gonna miss the mark. But if you try writing stories about Group B, and all the cultural knowledge you've ever really acquired about Group B is other stories that were also told by members of Group A, then you become more likely to misrepresent Group B.

I grew up in a small rural town in the American Midwest, and I could tell you a thousand stereotypes I thought were true about Groups B-Z purely because the only people I ever got my facts/stories/movies/history/jokes from were Group A. Some of them were arguably positive or neutral. Most were negative or, as you sarcastically invoked, "othering."

It's not about being delicate with these other groups. It's about being respectful. You should make an honest attempt to not misrepresent what you're writing about. In this context, "write what you know" isn't a blanket ban on writing anything outside of Group A's experience -- it's an encouragement to go out and know more things about a Group beyond what your own Group A has taught you, because guess what, Group A isn't the leading authority on Group B. And if you don't think you can do a good job (or if you don't want to put in the work to try, which is understandable and totally fine), then maybe you'd be better served sticking to what you know. Some people treat that as a condemnation, but TBH it just seems like good writing advice to me.

For as long as WotC's decision-makers are mostly Group A (read: likely forever), it makes sense for them to put in extra fact-checking work on settings, stories, and characters that were directly inspired by the stereotypes Group A taught itself about other groups.

[Ionathus]

It is best that if they know they can't do justice to an existing IP for any reason that they just set it aside.

Agreed. Firstly, I appreciate that they aren't trying to phone it in with low-effort cash grabs. And secondly, I understand the personal sentiment.

If you'd offered me a chance to do story work on an official Star Wars property ten years ago, I'd have probably jumped at the chance. If you offered it to me today, I'd probably turn it down -- certain fandoms have extremely vocal sects that get so incredibly precious about their favorite property that any perceived injustice done to the source material is met with endless vitriol and probably death threats.

Not saying that Dark Sun is comparable to the worst Star Wars fandoms - I don't know the Dark Sun fandom at all, but I don't believe this is the case. But just judging from the conversation here, it's extremely well-liked by a big chunk of people and unless I was certain I could satisfy those people, I wouldn't want to touch it either.

[Wintermoot]

I don't really know what the problematic content exactly is.

Reading this interview and thread just makes me think that everyone other than my small knit group of friends are apparently playing Dark Sun like a Tarnsman of Gor analog or something.

[BRC]

I don't really know what the problematic content exactly is.

Reading this interview and thread just makes me think that everyone other than my small knit group of friends are apparently playing Dark Sun like a Tarnsman of Gor analog or something.

I'm not super familiar with dark sun, but my guess would be a combination of normalized dark themes (Slavery and such) with fantastical cultures that serve as analogues for non-western cultures. That combination makes it difficult to avoid offense (And "But in this setting, EVERYBODY is horrible!" rarely helps in such cases).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Personally, I find the idea that you should only write what you know offensive and demand everyone stop using it lest they be deemed problematic.

[Segev]

I'd say that classic Western Fantasy, while certainly Analogous to a lot of cultural folklores, isn't quite in the same boat. While it takes some inspiration from various mythologies and folklores, it was generated by people FROM those folklores and, for the most part, has grown into a giant self-referential mess of it's own. Seeing as it was created largely for the purpose of consumption in exactly these sorts of works, it's a reliably safe well to draw on without fearing that you've accidentally turned a beloved cultural icon into another Scary Thing What Needs To Be Killed.

The "Problematic" aspects of using Western High Fantasy folklore usually come down to the idea of "Fantasy Races" and creating a world where the racist belief that "Some people are inheriently dumb/cruel/evil" is true.

Anime mangles and recreates western high fantasy in amusing ways and without any of this "sensitivity" concern. It makes some great stuff in so doing.

I want to point out the perspective shift, too, here: When discussing non-western fantasy, the "problematic" element stems from the westerner daring to write it, and he'd better get it faithfully correct Or Else. But when discussing the "problematic" elements of western high fantasy, the perspective shifts to why the fantasy itself is problematic, rather than why its a problematic representation of western myths.

This is a big problem with the entire "problematic" argument: it has its own unexamined biases that are, themselves, trouble if you want to actually make things that aren't offensive.

[NichG]

If you're coming from a perspective within the culture in question, you're going to, probably without thinking about it, treat those traditions with the appropriate respect. If you're from outside that culture, then people are, not unreasonably, going to be wanting to check your work.


Eh, it wouldn't be true of me for cultures I have generational connections to. I think this kind of view tends towards the same sort of issues that exoticizing 'other' cultures in general had.

Like, arguably this would 'qualify' me for the use of elements like golems, beatific spinning wheels made of eyes, deathless tyrants hiding their soul in phylacteries, grim and lethal spirits of winter, etc. But I learned more about those stories from e.g. reading D&D novels, A Wrinkle in Time, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, etc than anything I got through any kind of familial lines. Even if we talk about the culture of where I grew up rather than specifically cultures I have a lineal connection to, I'd say I'm more likely to treat a lot of those traditions disrespectfully (because my disagreements are more visceral to me) than something I didn't know about until I started studying it in my thirties or something and got into because of curiosity rather than because of need.

IMO fair should be fair, and we should give the same benefit of the doubt and the same level of critical thought to stories, regardless of who they came from.

[Ionathus]

Eh, it wouldn't be true of me for cultures I have generational connections to. I think this kind of view tends towards the same sort of issues that exoticizing 'other' cultures in general had.

Like, arguably this would 'qualify' me for the use of elements like golems, beatific spinning wheels made of eyes, deathless tyrants hiding their soul in phylacteries, grim and lethal spirits of winter, etc. But I learned more about those stories from e.g. reading D&D novels, A Wrinkle in Time, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, etc than anything I got through any kind of familial lines. Even if we talk about the culture of where I grew up rather than specifically cultures I have a lineal connection to, I'd say I'm more likely to treat a lot of those traditions disrespectfully (because my disagreements are more visceral to me) than something I didn't know about until I started studying it in my thirties or something and got into because of curiosity rather than because of need.

IMO fair should be fair, and we should give the same benefit of the doubt and the same level of critical thought to stories, regardless of who they came from.

(Emphasis mine)

But see, you still got it from within the same culture, even if it wasn't a direct source. If you used those elements, you'd still be a person from Group A retelling stories from Group A that you were taught by other members of Group A.

I don't think people need to have some direct genetic line to the stories that they tell. I do think it's a good idea to do your research if you didn't grow up with baseline cultural knowledge about the elements you want to use, especially if those elements are still important to other real people. I think we undersell the importance of that bit.

I remember so many people making such a huge stink about how bad and over-the-top the VIPs were in Squid Game, and the reaction from other parts of the world was "join the club - this is how we feel every time our demographic shows up in any Hollywood movie."

[Psyren]

Ya think? But they managed to make DS in 4e. Hmm.

Yeah, they sure did! Want to know how they did it? No classes banned (though they recommend psionic classes, there's a sidebar on ways you can include divine classes); all arcanists are preservers by default; the entire defiling mechanic boils down to an at-will power that gets you a reroll when used in conjunction with your daily attack powers and slightly damages your allies when used + kills all plants within 5ft, but preserving is no more difficult than casting normally in any other setting. And that's just the mechanical changes. So tell me, would you be okay with that for the 5e version?


I wouldn't characterize WotC as 'hasty' wrt content lol but I agree with your assessment overall.. The general impression I get is that the teams working on this are small and don't have as many resources as they should and consequently tend to just kind of fumble the delivery. With this being the case I can understand said team being averse to taking on something challenging like reimagining a beloved legacy setting that has a tone very distinct from the current version of the game.

I didn't mean hasty in terms of publishing volume, but rather in terms of, let's call it "content review" prior to publication. Which their new process should hopefully deal with, for anything that lacks the density of an entire campaign setting worth of questionable content. Otherwise I concur.



Though FWIW I think they overestimate how 'problematic' these old settings are. Its pretty easy to dispense with troublesome coding if you know what you're doing.

The issue isn't necessarily cleaning up a setting - I agree that's doable, albeit seemingly harder for Dark Sun than some of the others in their portfolio. The issue is doing it in a way that doesn't cause the predictable round of screeching (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) from a highly vocal contingent of legacy fans.


Behold and journey to the Radiant Citadel! (https://dnd.wizards.com/products/journeys-through-radiant-citadel)

Radiant Citadel isn't its own setting so much as it is an add-in that can work in any other setting with an Ethereal Plane (read: most of them.)

BTW - I mentioned this in one of the other threads, but the lead writer of Radiant Citadel is interested in tackling/revising Dark Sun. (https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/status/1517525628844527616)

[NichG]

(Emphasis mine)

But see, you still got it from within the same culture, even if it wasn't a direct source. If you used those elements, you'd still be a person from Group A retelling stories from Group A that you were taught by other members of Group A.

No, I by and large got it from people of all sorts of different cultures who reinterpreted things and churned them and moved them far from the source material. But some of whom were scholarly about it, some of whom were just using it as a gimmick, etc. But in the end I integrated a lot of different sources into my own views, which have nothing at all to do with the fact that by the sort of metric that is being proposed to determine whether its appropriate for someone to express things with or without critical review would put me as an insider and therefore given an extra benefit of the doubt.

My point is, that benefit of the doubt would be unearned in my case. So this belief that others would also be any more considerate or respectful purely by virtue of membership in the particular culture they're writing about doesn't hold up when I try to apply that belief to myself or others I know. I'm saying that everyone should do their research, and if you want to have some kind of standard of respectfulness or critique when it comes to what one person writes, you should apply that standard equally to everyone regardless of their origins.

[LibraryOgre]

Yeah, they sure did! Want to know how they did it? No classes banned (though they recommend psionic classes, there's a sidebar on ways you can include divine classes); all arcanists are preservers by default; the entire defiling mechanic boils down to an at-will power that gets you a reroll when used in conjunction with your daily attack powers and slightly damages your allies when used + kills all plants within 5ft, but preserving is no more difficult than casting normally in any other setting. And that's just the mechanical changes. So tell me, would you be okay with that for the 5e version?


The more I think about it, my preferred defiling mechanic is "any upcasting by a wizard is defiling". But I believe I have some relatively uncommon views on defiling, as I prefer the version from The Verdant Passage, and from Spells and Magic, to the "Defiler as class" of the boxed set.

[BRC]

Anime mangles and recreates western high fantasy in amusing ways and without any of this "sensitivity" concern. It makes some great stuff in so doing.

I want to point out the perspective shift, too, here: When discussing non-western fantasy, the "problematic" element stems from the westerner daring to write it, and he'd better get it faithfully correct Or Else. But when discussing the "problematic" elements of western high fantasy, the perspective shifts to why the fantasy itself is problematic, rather than why its a problematic representation of western myths.

This is a big problem with the entire "problematic" argument: it has its own unexamined biases that are, themselves, trouble if you want to actually make things that aren't offensive.

Anime was exactly what I was thinking of, but the point is that Japanese (or Chinese, or any) creators can really do whatever they want with the Western High Fantasy Canon of Orcs and Elves and Dragons without worrying about stepping on anything because that whole canon is a commercial invention several degrees separate from what we usually think of as folklore or mythology. While people might object to the concept of an always-evil sentient species, or a particular depiction of, let's say, Gnolls as a clear analogue for some culture or another, the concept of "Gnolls" by themselves isn't something people care about. Also, the majority of available information FROM this particular canon comes from the vast amounts of popular fiction written by western authors, so you can be reasonably sure that none of these are especially sacred concepts.

For an equivalent from a non-western culture let's look at the concept of the Ninja. Japanese authors have created countless stories about ninjas, featuring everything from historically accurate spies and assassins to Naruto-style martial artists/wizards. From this we can be reasonably sure that Japanese culture considers Ninja to be open game as far as fodder for re-imagining and recreation. You can do whatever you want with Ninja, and nobody is going to get offended (It's certainly possible to use Ninja in an offensive way, but in that case it's more that you brought offense to the concept, than that you used the concept wrong)

[Segev]

Anime was exactly what I was thinking of, but the point is that Japanese (or Chinese, or any) creators can really do whatever they want with the Western High Fantasy Canon of Orcs and Elves and Dragons without worrying about stepping on anything because that whole canon is a commercial invention several degrees separate from what we usually think of as folklore or mythology. While people might object to the concept of an always-evil sentient species, or a particular depiction of, let's say, Gnolls as a clear analogue for some culture or another, the concept of "Gnolls" by themselves isn't something people care about. Also, the majority of available information FROM this particular canon comes from the vast amounts of popular fiction written by western authors, so you can be reasonably sure that none of these are especially sacred concepts.

For an equivalent from a non-western culture let's look at the concept of the Ninja. Japanese authors have created countless stories about ninjas, featuring everything from historically accurate spies and assassins to Naruto-style martial artists/wizards. From this we can be reasonably sure that Japanese culture considers Ninja to be open game as far as fodder for re-imagining and recreation. You can do whatever you want with Ninja, and nobody is going to get offended (It's certainly possible to use Ninja in an offensive way, but in that case it's more that you brought offense to the concept, than that you used the concept wrong)

{Scrubbed}

[NichG]

Anime was exactly what I was thinking of, but the point is that Japanese (or Chinese, or any) creators can really do whatever they want with the Western High Fantasy Canon of Orcs and Elves and Dragons without worrying about stepping on anything because that whole canon is a commercial invention several degrees separate from what we usually think of as folklore or mythology. While people might object to the concept of an always-evil sentient species, or a particular depiction of, let's say, Gnolls as a clear analogue for some culture or another, the concept of "Gnolls" by themselves isn't something people care about. Also, the majority of available information FROM this particular canon comes from the vast amounts of popular fiction written by western authors, so you can be reasonably sure that none of these are especially sacred concepts.

For an equivalent from a non-western culture let's look at the concept of the Ninja. Japanese authors have created countless stories about ninjas, featuring everything from historically accurate spies and assassins to Naruto-style martial artists/wizards. From this we can be reasonably sure that Japanese culture considers Ninja to be open game as far as fodder for re-imagining and recreation. You can do whatever you want with Ninja, and nobody is going to get offended (It's certainly possible to use Ninja in an offensive way, but in that case it's more that you brought offense to the concept, than that you used the concept wrong)

Japan also just has a very different social media climate such that even when there is stuff that would offend particular western cultural subgroups, the complaint just doesn't have legs.

[BRC]

Japan also just has a very different social media climate such that even when there is stuff that would offend particular western cultural subgroups, the complaint just doesn't have legs.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I didn't say that anime is free of inaccurate or insensitive representations of other cultures.

Just that in the specific realm of D&Desque High Fantasy...there isn't really much you can do to the standard tropes and concepts that would offend anybody.

[strangebloke]

The issue isn't necessarily cleaning up a setting - I agree that's doable, albeit seemingly harder for Dark Sun than some of the others in their portfolio. The issue is doing it in a way that doesn't cause the predictable round of screeching (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyChangedItNowItSucks) from a highly vocal contingent of legacy fans.


Eh, the influence of social media screamers is almost universally overestimated. There's loads of stuff that gets hated to an insane degree on twitter and youtube despite (or perhaps because of) objectively massive financial success.

IMO if the product is simply very good the internet disk horse will just fade into background noise as every normal non-social-media obsessed person has fun with the product.

They changed a lot with FR for better or worse and there was complaining but I don't think this really dragged down all that 5e FR content that came out in 2015-2016. Everyone was just happy with the new system.

[NichG]

I didn't say that anime is free of inaccurate or insensitive representations of other cultures.

Just that in the specific realm of D&Desque High Fantasy...there isn't really much you can do to the standard tropes and concepts that would offend anybody.

Goblin Slayer.

[Psyren]

The more I think about it, my preferred defiling mechanic is "any upcasting by a wizard is defiling". But I believe I have some relatively uncommon views on defiling, as I prefer the version from The Verdant Passage, and from Spells and Magic, to the "Defiler as class" of the boxed set.

Just a wizard? Does that mean Sorcerers/Bards would be fine? Or Warlocks who upcast automatically even?

I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely wondering if the defiling mechanic was only intended to apply to wizardry. (I know that might not be an easy question to answer given that 2e didn't really have sorcerers, bards, and warlocks as we know them today.)



IMO if the product is simply very good the internet disk horse will just fade into background noise as every normal non-social-media obsessed person has fun with the product.

They changed a lot with FR for better or worse and there was complaining but I don't think this really dragged down all that 5e FR content that came out in 2015-2016. Everyone was just happy with the new system.

That's the rub though, isn't it? What counts as "simply very good" for Dark Sun? To what extent can you "change a lot" and still have it feel like DS? For a setting like FR, I'd argue that's a much easier question to answer.

[strangebloke]

Watch anime that features the Catholic church, or any pseudo-Christian one, and tell me they are worried about cultural sensitivity. I will state that these works remain entertaining despite clearly not "getting" the faith they're referencing. I won't go into details for forum-rules reasons, but I think I'm safe to say that it's clear that most anime authors...don't grok that aspect of Western culture very well.

Trigun (the manga) would be the exception here.

But cultures exist in context and people get concerned about some misrepresentations more than others. Nobody cares if you make fun of the French.


I didn't say that anime is free of inaccurate or insensitive representations of other cultures.

Just that in the specific realm of D&Desque High Fantasy...there isn't really much you can do to the standard tropes and concepts that would offend anybody.

The last line of your post has been proven wrong a LOT over the last few years lol:smalltongue:

[BRC]

Goblin Slayer.

The presence of goblins and dwarves was secondary to the things people found offensive in Goblin Slayer.

[NichG]

The presence of goblins and dwarves was secondary to the things people found offensive in Goblin Slayer.

Having a genocidal protagonist and depicting a designated culture its okay to kill indiscriminately is I think quite relevant to the line of discourse about what would be objectionable in cultural depictions in Dark Sun though.

The broader point I was trying to make with regards to Japan however is that standards of offensiveness vary, standards of care about offensiveness vary, and viewing Japan's cultural appropriation of western stuff as okay but everyone else's cultural appropriate of eastern stuff as 'bad' is a vast oversimplification.

[Leon]

Probably for the best, the present dev's couldn't design its way out of wet paper bag

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah. I've got a thick skin. Would I play FATAL? Heck no. But am I offended it exists? Only that someone wasted their time like that. But I feel that same way about a lot of things, including 90+% of popular culture.

Setting your target at "no one is offended" guarantees both failure and boring mush. And saying that people can only write what they know is, to me, a crime against creativity. None of us could write about orcs and elves and dragons because we don't come from that culture. Fantasy is built around writing things that you're not part of (inherently, since we all live in the real world, despite trying to deny that fact sometimes).

And sensitivity readers don't help--they can't speak (justifiably) for the whole culture. They can only speak for themselves. Because that's not a thing. Cultures don't have officially-appointed spokespersons. Countries might, but each country has a bucket-load of cultures and cultures are constantly shifting. And even if they could speak for an entire culture...people can and do still get offended about things that their "culture" (which culture? Most people are part of many many microcultures) doesn't care about. Or vice versa, are fine with things their culture doesn't like.

Designers and writers should have
a) a clear vision of their product
b) a clear vision of their intended audience
and then craft stuff that works for those two groups. And no, "everyone" isn't a clear vision of an intended audience. Because "pleases everyone (or at least doesn't offend anyone)" isn't a satisfiable set of constraints.
This too is my feelings on "write what you know".

I'd like to add as well that this idea is low-key turning entire peoples into a monolith. Like... who is going to judge if you sufficiently know what you're writing? It's not as if "the culture" is going to manifest as a spectral (to borrow a term from 5E) spirit and give a thumbs up or thumbs down on the body of work. It's not like cultures vote to have a representative to speak on their entire behalf. Also... why does one culture get to govern how things are depicted in another culture/country/economy/etc.? There's so much that's simply taken for granted in these discussions that, to my mind, don't actually go without saying.

You may find yourself poo-pooing a piece of work, while the people it was inspired by are lauding it. And to take a brilliant example; Dave Chappelle's barber shop skit where they test to see how different groups of people react to different music is one of the greatest of all time. And when he starts "sprinkling gibberish" over the megaphone it cracks me up every single time despite the fact he's making fun of people that speak my language. Who is the authority that is going to decide whether we should be able to consume that media or not? Who is going to decide whether Tictuktitlay's depiction is offensive or not? I'd love to be there when you approach someone and explain why you think it might offend them.

One of the problems here is that the people pushing for this 1) think they are objectively right and 2) think that the people they purport to defend also think they are right. I've got some bad news for you...

My understanding is that there are a few angles to it.

1) Respect and Not Screwing Things Up. There's a lot of cultures out there with a lot of different folklore and inspirations, some of which is just fun stories for kids, and some of which is actually deeply important.

If you're coming from a perspective within the culture in question, you're going to, probably without thinking about it, treat those traditions with the appropriate respect. If you're from outside that culture, then people are, not unreasonably, going to be wanting to check your work.
It's interesting because you switched the parameters here mid-sentence. If it's my culture, I treat it with respect. If it's another culture... other people will want to check.

Strange. I would expect you to say that I wouldn't treat it with respect. But I think you know that it's a weak position that doesn't logically follow. And what is the opposite of people wanting to check my work? That people would accept it if it was within my culture.

But we know that people can write within their own culture all the time and write terrible stuff. We don't actually just accept it when someone writes from "what they know".

None of this really follows. It's a double standard, as Segev points out.

2) You've got the economic angle of Cultural Appropriation in one of the original uses of the term, taking something from a culture and reaping the benefits of that creation. This angle gets a lot murkier than "Don't insult somebody's important heritage and/or re-create stereotypes", but the general idea is that there's some degree where people from a culture Deserve to be the ones telling that culture's stories in a new medium, rather than some outsider seeing it, thinking "Neat!" and grabbing it. This is a lot less relevant to this discussion, but it can certainly come up sometimes.
I'm not going to touch this because I'm sure I'll be reported in a heartbeat but... let's just say I disagree with this notion as well.

The "Problematic" aspects of using Western High Fantasy folklore usually come down to the idea of "Fantasy Races" and creating a world where the racist belief that "Some people are inheriently dumb/cruel/evil" is true.

Anime mangles and recreates western high fantasy in amusing ways and without any of this "sensitivity" concern. It makes some great stuff in so doing.

I want to point out the perspective shift, too, here: When discussing non-western fantasy, the "problematic" element stems from the westerner daring to write it, and he'd better get it faithfully correct Or Else. But when discussing the "problematic" elements of western high fantasy, the perspective shifts to why the fantasy itself is problematic, rather than why its a problematic representation of western myths.

This is a big problem with the entire "problematic" argument: it has its own unexamined biases that are, themselves, trouble if you want to actually make things that aren't offensive.
I think Segev has the right of it here.

Agreed. Firstly, I appreciate that they aren't trying to phone it in with low-effort cash grabs. And secondly, I understand the personal sentiment.

If you'd offered me a chance to do story work on an official Star Wars property ten years ago, I'd have probably jumped at the chance. If you offered it to me today, I'd probably turn it down -- certain fandoms have extremely vocal sects that get so incredibly precious about their favorite property that any perceived injustice done to the source material is met with endless vitriol and probably death threats.

Not saying that Dark Sun is comparable to the worst Star Wars fandoms - I don't know the Dark Sun fandom at all, but I don't believe this is the case. But just judging from the conversation here, it's extremely well-liked by a big chunk of people and unless I was certain I could satisfy those people, I wouldn't want to touch it either.
I think you're missing that some of these injustices are real. As an example, the lead writer of Radiant Citadel wants to revise Dark Sun to be a commentary on our society/world. Do you think I care about what some guy thinks the problems of our world are? And do you think that fans of Dark Sun want to see the setting brought back through the lenses of someone that needs to see their own personal ideology reflected in everything they touch?

It's unfair to portray the fandom in this way and ignore the fact that the people creating a lot of content right now are all writing the same story over and over again and expecting to cash in on the IP that these fandoms love.

Are there some unreasonable expectations or unwarranted whining? Absolutely. But let's not pretend the writers we have these days are amazing talent with interesting stories to tell. I'm pretty sure I can do a treatment on Ajit's "revision" of Dark Sun in my sleep. I've heard the story a million times already.

I don't really know what the problematic content exactly is.

Reading this interview and thread just makes me think that everyone other than my small knit group of friends are apparently playing Dark Sun like a Tarnsman of Gor analog or something.
Indeed. Part of the power in keeping it vague is that we imagine things far worse than what actually is.

Eh, it wouldn't be true of me for cultures I have generational connections to. I think this kind of view tends towards the same sort of issues that exoticizing 'other' cultures in general had.

Like, arguably this would 'qualify' me for the use of elements like golems, beatific spinning wheels made of eyes, deathless tyrants hiding their soul in phylacteries, grim and lethal spirits of winter, etc. But I learned more about those stories from e.g. reading D&D novels, A Wrinkle in Time, Neil Gaiman's American Gods, etc than anything I got through any kind of familial lines. Even if we talk about the culture of where I grew up rather than specifically cultures I have a lineal connection to, I'd say I'm more likely to treat a lot of those traditions disrespectfully (because my disagreements are more visceral to me) than something I didn't know about until I started studying it in my thirties or something and got into because of curiosity rather than because of need.

IMO fair should be fair, and we should give the same benefit of the doubt and the same level of critical thought to stories, regardless of who they came from.
Agreed.

Anime was exactly what I was thinking of, but the point is that Japanese (or Chinese, or any) creators can really do whatever they want with the Western High Fantasy Canon of Orcs and Elves and Dragons without worrying about stepping on anything because that whole canon is a commercial invention several degrees separate from what we usually think of as folklore or mythology. While people might object to the concept of an always-evil sentient species, or a particular depiction of, let's say, Gnolls as a clear analogue for some culture or another, the concept of "Gnolls" by themselves isn't something people care about. Also, the majority of available information FROM this particular canon comes from the vast amounts of popular fiction written by western authors, so you can be reasonably sure that none of these are especially sacred concepts.

For an equivalent from a non-western culture let's look at the concept of the Ninja. Japanese authors have created countless stories about ninjas, featuring everything from historically accurate spies and assassins to Naruto-style martial artists/wizards. From this we can be reasonably sure that Japanese culture considers Ninja to be open game as far as fodder for re-imagining and recreation. You can do whatever you want with Ninja, and nobody is going to get offended (It's certainly possible to use Ninja in an offensive way, but in that case it's more that you brought offense to the concept, than that you used the concept wrong)
Huh? See, this is interesting. I wouldn't make this assumption about an entire culture of people in the first place.

But not only that, apparently because the Japanese do it with their own history/lore, that means it's okay for everyone else that doesn't know anything about it to do it as well? How does this track?

[Sigreid]

(Emphasis mine)

But see, you still got it from within the same culture, even if it wasn't a direct source. If you used those elements, you'd still be a person from Group A retelling stories from Group A that you were taught by other members of Group A.

I don't think people need to have some direct genetic line to the stories that they tell. I do think it's a good idea to do your research if you didn't grow up with baseline cultural knowledge about the elements you want to use, especially if those elements are still important to other real people. I think we undersell the importance of that bit.

I remember so many people making such a huge stink about how bad and over-the-top the VIPs were in Squid Game, and the reaction from other parts of the world was "join the club - this is how we feel every time our demographic shows up in any Hollywood movie."

I get the impression you have a WILD misunderstanding of the cultural and folklore diversity in "Western Europe".

[Gignere]

It’s probably not even a decision made by the creative team. Hasbro is a large publicly traded company, they have a whole web page dedicated to diversity and inclusion. They likely have a D&I officer on the board and a chief risk officer. They are more likely to be the ones to have vetoed Dark Sun. The marginal revenue from a controversial setting that can potentially be consider a mark against their corporate D&I initiatives doesn’t pass the risk/reward analysis.

[subtledoctor]

I’m a bit surprised everyone is jumping to the conclusion that “WotC won’t touch Dark Sun because slavery.” I mean, could modern D&D never do settings like ancient Rome, with gladiatorial arenas and people there against their will but fighting to be free?

Frankly you could remove most slavery from the Dark Sun setting and it would hold up just fine. Limit it to very recent history when Kalak specifically used broad, non-race-based forced labor to build his ziggurat for horrifically evil ends, but now he’s dead and that sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore. Remove or repurpose the gladiator stuff. The setting would still work.

BUT there are more problematic aspects of the setting:

- Dark Sun has a setting history explicitly revolving around race-based violence. Genocide. In today’s rather charged political environment, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to publish material that embraces such a story.

- 5E is designed as a high-magic game and Dark Sun is a setting in which the convenience and power of magic causes a climate catastrophe. It’s a bit on the nose, in today’s rather charged political environment.

- Further, the presence of post-apocalyptic psionic surfing will inevitably cause some number of players to ragequit D&D.

Yes, the setting could possibly hold up if WotC changed any or all of that… but any changes would inevitably piss off the fan base, so why do it?

[stoutstien]

Honestly, I don't think that's the case at all. Dark Sun may present the world as being filled with slavery, oppression, and ecological disaster, but those are pretty much always presented as things to struggle against. The Verdant Passage, the first novel, is about overthrowing a sorcerer-king and ending slavery in a city.

The Monster Manual for 5e is FILLED with slavery. There are several races that are said to eat other sophonts. There are dark gods, there are people with powers given by fiends and eldritch powers from beyond. All sorts of difficult things are part of D&D already... but they're presented as things to be struggled against.

I'm not saying what it is or isn't. only what is usually the hang up for Dark sun as a setting and why it's going to be difficult to redux within WoTC's model both market and mechanic wise.

They need a new setting that's not a over flow from MTG or CR. They have shown they do have the capacity in a few books but haven't pulled the trigger.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, could modern D&D never do settings like ancient Rome, with gladiatorial arenas and people there against their will but fighting to be free?

With all the evidences shown, we have to conclufe that current D&D could never do that, indeed.



- Dark Sun has a setting history explicitly revolving around race-based violence. Genocide. In todayÂ’s rather charged political environment, it doesnÂ’t seem like a good idea to publish material that embraces such a story.

Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance is a recent prequel of the much older Dark Crystal movie. The movie starts after the BBEGs genocided at least two peoples, and left only two confirmed survivors for a third one.

Age of Resistance starts just before the BBEGs start their genocidal campaign.

The show had great success with critics and audiences alike.


Heck, Elden Ring got the Game of the Year award and wide acclaims from the audience, despite making the protagonist travel through a land filled with slavery, violent oppression, and the aftermath of several genocides.
Depicting something does not mean you are glorifying it or "embracing" it or the like.

Same way that you can have an adventure where armed warlords burn a peaceful village in honorof their dragon goddess without "embracing" it.

[Dr.Samurai]

I’m a bit surprised everyone is jumping to the conclusion that “WotC won’t touch Dark Sun because slavery.” I mean, could modern D&D never do settings like ancient Rome, with gladiatorial arenas and people there against their will but fighting to be free?

Frankly you could remove most slavery from the Dark Sun setting and it would hold up just fine. Limit it to very recent history when Kalak specifically used broad, non-race-based forced labor to build his ziggurat for horrifically evil ends, but now he’s dead and that sort of thing doesn’t happen anymore. Remove or repurpose the gladiator stuff. The setting would still work.

BUT there are more problematic aspects of the setting:

- Dark Sun has a setting history explicitly revolving around race-based violence. Genocide. In today’s rather charged political environment, it doesn’t seem like a good idea to publish material that embraces such a story.

- 5E is designed as a high-magic game and Dark Sun is a setting in which the convenience and power of magic causes a climate catastrophe. It’s a bit on the nose, in today’s rather charged political environment.

- Further, the presence of post-apocalyptic psionic surfing will inevitably cause some number of players to ragequit D&D.

Yes, the setting could possibly hold up if WotC changed any or all of that… but any changes would inevitably piss off the fan base, so why do it?
I'm not sure why slavery isn't an issue for you, but genocide is. The reason you give for genocide being "problematic" would seem to apply to slavery as well.

I think all the issues you highlight as "problematic" are unreasonable positions for anyone to take. And I think that's where we all lose each other. Because it's just taken for granted that "genocide = bad, so if people cancel WotC over Dark Sun it makes sense". But it doesn't actually make sense. It's an unreasonable position to hold.

Part of the problem is that people are treating everything as allegory or commentary on our times. Even when Ajit says he's interested to revise Dark Sun, it's a revision as a commentary on today's problems. That's not the role of campaign settings. But when you have this mindset, you perceive things in this way.

I think it would be simple enough to take the plot points of Dark Sun, and weave a story that speaks to modern day oppression, historical atrocities, and a battle with climate changing that is brought about by the actions of the very people imperiled by it. You can do that. What you CAN'T DO is say that this IS what Dark Sun is, that this is the point of Dark Sun and this is what it's about. And therefore, Dark Sun is saying things/taking a side about the various aspects we're all discussing.

Sacha wiping out all of the kobolds during the Cleansing Wars has absolutely NO BEARING on the real world. It doesn't speak to anything. It's lore for Dark Sun. You can make it speak to something that happened in the real world. You can pull historical stuff and insert it and weave it in with the lore of Dark Sun if you want. You can make a compelling game that resonates with your players and makes them think about our own real world in a different way. But that's you. Don't remove yourself from the equation. Dark Sun is just Dark Sun. Whatever you foist on it is coming from you.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not sure why slavery isn't an issue for you, but genocide is. The reason you give for genocide being "problematic" would seem to apply to slavery as well.

I think all the issues you highlight as "problematic" are unreasonable positions for anyone to take. And I think that's where we all lose each other. Because it's just taken for granted that "genocide = bad, so if people cancel WotC over Dark Sun it makes sense". But it doesn't actually make sense. It's an unreasonable position to hold.

Part of the problem is that people are treating everything as allegory or commentary on our times. Even when Ajit says he's interested to revise Dark Sun, it's a revision as a commentary on today's problems. That's not the role of campaign settings. But when you have this mindset, you perceive things in this way.

I think it would be simple enough to take the plot points of Dark Sun, and weave a story that speaks to modern day oppression, historical atrocities, and a battle with climate changing that is brought about by the actions of the very people imperiled by it. You can do that. What you CAN'T DO is say that this IS what Dark Sun is, that this is the point of Dark Sun and this is what it's about. And therefore, Dark Sun is saying things/taking a side about the various aspects we're all discussing.

Sacha wiping out all of the kobolds during the Cleansing Wars has absolutely NO BEARING on the real world. It doesn't speak to anything. It's lore for Dark Sun. You can make it speak to something that happened in the real world. You can pull historical stuff and insert it and weave it in with the lore of Dark Sun if you want. You can make a compelling game that resonates with your players and makes them think about our own real world in a different way. But that's you. Don't remove yourself from the equation. Dark Sun is just Dark Sun. Whatever you foist on it is coming from you.

I disagree with that position.

Lore about a magic warlord genociding small dragon humanoids may not be an allegory for anything in real life, but it is still a statememt on genocide itself.

If the kobolds are sapient individuals with free will, but killing every last one of them is presented as a good thing Sacha was right to do, then it's a statememt on how genocide is acceptable (with a list of explicit or implied criteria the kobold met that made it acceptable).

If the kobolds are sapient individuals with free will, and Sacha is presented as a monster for killing them all, then it is also a statement, and that statement applies to anyone who shares the desire to do the same acts, even if against different peoples in a different context.

Same way it is often a good thing to have a protagonist with noticeable flaws, but if the protagonist does something that would illustrate a flaw and is instead glorified for it by the work, that is making a statement.

[Dr.Samurai]

Agreed, but it's not saying anything about genocide in the real world.

Obviously Rajaat and his Champions thought genocide was a "good thing" or at least "necessary". That's not a commentary on reality though. Anyone pointing to Dark Sun as justification for anything would rightly be looked upon as not-all-there.

[Unoriginal]

Agreed, but it's not saying anything about genocide in the real world.

Obviously Rajaat and his Champions thought genocide was a "good thing" or at least "necessary". That's not a commentary on reality though. Anyone pointing to Dark Sun as justification for anything would rightly be looked upon as not-all-there.

What the characters think and how they are shown by the work are different things.

That the Champions can commit attrocities and still delude themselves into thinking they are good is a commentary on everone who advocates for or enact attrocities.

If instead Dark Sun lore praised the Champions for their acts and argued they were good people, it would be a commentary too.


The 3.X Book of Exalted Deeds gave a method to torture an evil being with magic until they became benevolent, and presented that as good. The 5e PHB used to state that forcing people to do good deeds was not something good entities would do, as it's just slavery. Both are commentaries on ethical considerations with real-life implication.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't think it is.

Being a commentary is not the default status of any work.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, they sure did! Want to know how they did it? No classes banned (though they recommend psionic classes, there's a sidebar on ways you can include divine classes); all arcanists are preservers by default; the entire defiling mechanic boils down to an at-will power that gets you a reroll when used in conjunction with your daily attack powers and slightly damages your allies when used + kills all plants within 5ft, but preserving is no more difficult than casting normally in any other setting. And that's just the mechanical changes. So tell me, would you be okay with that for the 5e version? I'd rather not. But they don't have to do that, this isn't 4e.
I like the idea of damage to allies and/or environment from any arcane spell casting (wild magic sorcerer already does this occasionally) and an HP cost to any arcane spell cast. The divine spells would need work to transition into elementally sourced spells; and I think they would need a new Paladin subclass to go along with Vengeance and Conquest, which are the only two I think fit into the setting. (Although Redemption could be tweaked to be an all in Preserver, that still takes a tweak and one may as well make that a new sub class/oath).

[Unoriginal]

I don't think it is.

Being a commentary is not the default status of any work.

All works are expression of many things.

Some of those things are straightforward, some rely on added layers.

Beowulf fighting the dragon is straightfowardly a king protecting his people from a great threat, and symbollically a king struggling against the personification of "How a bad king behaves according to the culture the story is from". Both layers coexist.

Similarly, if I were to write a D&D scenario where the PCs are tasked by a father to sabotage his adult son's current romantic relationship so he can make said son have political marriage without obstacle, and that I portray the father as in the right with the PCs being expected to accept the deal if they're good people, I would be making a statement about all parents who are willing to sabotage their children's relationships for their own gains, as well as about the people who help them.

Fictionsl works do not exist in a vacuum nor are they written by neutral entities, or for neutral entities.

[Dr.Samurai]

Unoriginal, I clearly disagree as my entire point is that Dark Sun is not, by default, intrinsically some commentary on society, and that whenever someone tries to pull something from it to explain something about the real world, that is a reflection of THAT PERSON, and not the campaign setting.

The absence or presence of a "vacuum" has no bearing on this. Some works of fiction are just that. Some works of fiction are just settings for a roleplaying game. They aren't Beowulf.

[Psyren]

I'd rather not. But they don't have to do that, this isn't 4e.

Then why bring up "but they did it in 4e, hmmmm" if the way they did it in 4e doesn't matter? Yes, I completely agree they're different editions, but I'm not the one suggesting that if they found a way to do it there that they must be able to here.

If anything, Kyle's statement seems to be saying he doesn't think they did the setting justice last time.



I like the idea of damage to allies and/or environment from any arcane spell casting (wild magic sorcerer already does this occasionally) and an HP cost to any arcane spell cast. The divine spells would need work to transition into elementally sourced spells; and I think they would need a new Paladin subclass to go along with Vengeance and Conquest, which are the only two I think fit into the setting. (Although Redemption could be tweaked to be an all in Preserver, that still takes a tweak and one may as well make that a new sub class/oath).

I'm not against defiling harming your allies, but a little bit of HP damage is a joke unless they make much more sweeping changes to the underlying game - not just restricting divine magic (and psionics if they go that route), but also changing how things like hit dice and temp HP work. Otherwise, defiling would end up even more trivial in 5e than it was in 4th, and that's saying something.

[Keltest]

Unoriginal, I clearly disagree as my entire point is that Dark Sun is not, by default, intrinsically some commentary on society, and that whenever someone tries to pull something from it to explain something about the real world, that is a reflection of THAT PERSON, and not the campaign setting.

The absence or presence of a "vacuum" has no bearing on this. Some works of fiction are just that. Some works of fiction are just settings for a roleplaying game. They aren't Beowulf.

Agreed. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Meta-commentary read into a lot of works tends to be far more reflective of the reader than of the work itself.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: Locked for review.