Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Keltest]

It has to compete with every other possible setting or product which they could instead dedicate the same resources to, and leads to a question of what's the best ROI. Nostalgia alone doesn't cut it, those of us who played in the pre-WoTC days can't be the largest portion of the market.

As opposed to what, releasing another fantasy kitchen sink setting that isnt meaningfully different from the last 3?

[Psyren]

If Dark Sun was anywhere near as 'problematic' as they say, why are they still selling 2e and 4e pdfs for it?

Oh wait, greedy oligarchs, money.

As a reminder, they sell those legacy Dark Sun PDFs with the following disclaimer:

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end."

You can probably see how a disclaimer like this wouldn't really pass muster if they tried to apply it to a brand new Dark Sun product made for 5e or 1DnD.

But I kind of agree with you, in the sense that no matter what they might try to do to sanitize Dark Sun, the people that call things "problematic" will likely still find fault with it.

As would the people who hate change of any stripe. And even if both extremes represent a minority, they're easily loud enough that it's reasonable for them to conclude the firestorm wouldn't be worth it.

Firstly, I don't actually think you can make the same argument about some of the settings you've listed.

Secondly, that you can make the same argument doesn't preclude you from publishing the campaign setting.

Thirdly, Dark Sun is unique enough, even without problematic elements, that it would be a welcome addition in any edition. I mean... 5E must be the least wondrous setting published so far. And I never played 2E or earlier so I'm going out on a limb here. But 3E at least gave us supplements about the planes and deities and devils and demons and desert locales and underwater regions and the list goes on and on and on. 5E has given us virtually nothing in comparison. It's as stale and edition as you can get, barely fantasy. For all the talk about "D&D is not a simulation", taking a look at the books and you're basically wandering through pretty normal locales with maybe some interesting stuff sprinkled here or there, maybe.

Fourth, if the developers were actually working on all this material, I can see a point somewhere around here. But the fact is they aren't working on Greyhawk, Rokugan, Mystara, etc.

Fifth, by your own comment it's clear that old school fans will buy it is enough, because that is exactly who Krynn and Spelljammer appeal to. Unless you're trying to suggest that the bulk of those sales were to bright eyed and bushy tailed newbies that just started their D&D journey in 5E and all rushed the bookshelves to scoop up this new campaign setting called Dragonlance and Spelljammer.

1) Development resources are finite. Time they spend on Dark Sun is time they're not spending on Greyhawk, more Krynn etc.

2) See #1.

3) Being "unique" doesn't mean it's a good fit for the current game. Even putting aside the potential subject matter issues, already I see folks here wanting them to design not one but three separate subsystems in order for the setting to have the necessary fidelity with its older counterpart, and hey while they're at it, could they also ban every divine caster to preserve muh immersion which would limit the already niche audience for DS books even further? It's multiple extra hurdles that other settings just don't have.

4) Beyond the new PHB, you don't know what they're working on. We didn't find out about Planescape until August, but they were clearly working on it much longer.

5) Their goal is and always has been to make something that appeals to both old and new fans alike. Kyle's point was that threading that needle would be harder with a grimdark setting like Dark Sun (see #3.)

Compete how, exactly? Are you saying that there are enough people who would purchase a campaign setting, but for the fact that there is now another setting they would rather have?

Compete for development resources - see #1.

[Brookshw]

As opposed to what, releasing another fantasy kitchen sink setting that isnt meaningfully different from the last 3?

I certainly hope not. They could always do something new that's more in line with their current standards.

[Psyren]

One of the Radiant Citadel lead designers/authors, Ajit George, expressed interest in tackling a modern take on Dark Sun: https://twitter.com/ajitgeorgeSB/sta...25628844527616

[Dr.Samurai]

No we won't, I'm an old school fan and I returned my copy of SJ because it was a hollow shell of the 2e setting, DS will be the same if its ever released.

This is a quality argument, and I made a similar one.

Does it?

The Lycanthropic Purge

The dragons wiped out all the titans and cursed the remaining few so that their progeny basically devolve each generation, so we now have standard D&D giants in Eberron.

The dragons and elves wiped out the entire line of the Vol family.

The Inspired want to wipe out all Kalashtar and have already wiped out one "lineage" of Kalashtar.

One of the Shadowmarked family wiped out a whole other Shadowmarked family.

There's a lot of "wiping out this whole group of people" going on in Eberron.

And most of these examples are within living memory, as opposed to way off in the distant distant distant past of the setting like in Dark Sun.

yes, yes, we've been over the difference between wide spread systematic systems and small pockets of "here be bad" (oh, and they've moved away from that generally, save maybe for Illithids)

I haven't been over this before actually, so happy to have the conversation.

I don't see what is not systemic about the slavery that drow, neogi, illithids, duergar, etc. engage in. I mean... they have to raid the surface world to replenish their slaves, they have powers that specifically enslave, they have special equipment for their slaves, etc.

I'm sure, that if we just count drow alone, there are more city-states in Forgotten Realms with slavery than there are on Athas. And that's one group of people, and below the surface.

Again... it's not obvious to me what is different, nor why it's so terrible given that it's clearly a very bad thing in Dark Sun.

So we're moving past the idea that kids are always playing under adult supervision or guidance? Okay.

Uh sure. I guess that leaves us at "It seems to be my problem now that parents don't want their children playing certain games, but also don't supervise the purchases kids make, nor ever check on them to see what they've bought and what they're doing. And for this reason, this particular burden of parenting now falls on all D&D players to shoulder, as they can no longer have campaigns published that would be otherwise gated by parents."

It has to compete with every other possible setting or product which they could instead dedicate the same resources to, and leads to a question of what's the best ROI. Nostalgia alone doesn't cut it, those of us who played in the pre-WoTC days can't be the largest portion of the market.

I don't know. But I highly doubt the "it's problematic" crowd are also the largest portion. Or even a big portion.

As a reminder, they sell those legacy Dark Sun PDFs with the following disclaimer:

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end."

You can probably see how a disclaimer like this wouldn't really pass muster if they tried to apply it to a brand new Dark Sun product made for 5e or 1DnD.

Ah yes, the "Have our cake and eat it too" disclaimer. Good luck finding the prejudices reflected in Dark Sun. You'll be squinting for sure, but not because of the daylight.

As would the people who hate change of any stripe. And even if both extremes represent a minority, they're easily loud enough that it's reasonable for them to conclude the firestorm wouldn't be worth it.

So we are slaves to those that find slavery problematic. *chef's kiss*

1) Development resources are finite. Time they spend on Dark Sun is time they're not spending on Greyhawk, more Krynn etc.

Are they spending resources on Greyhawk?

2) See #1.

I see you making assumptions.

3) Being "unique" doesn't mean it's a good fit for the current game. Even putting aside the potential subject matter issues, already I see folks here wanting them to design not one but three separate subsystems in order for the setting to have the necessary fidelity with its older counterpart, and hey while they're at it, could they also ban every divine caster to preserve muh immersion which would limit the already niche audience for DS books even further? It's multiple extra hurdles that other settings just don't have.

I wouldn't worry about those guys though. Remember, you and Brookshw are downplaying the impact/needs of the old schoolers. So, if they are just a small group of grognards, that's fine. But don't pretend that their "inevitable" disappointment and outrage is then reason to not do something. They can't be "small potatoes" on the one hand and then "big shots" on the other.

Basically what you're saying here is "no new players of D&D want Dark Sun, and you won't satisfy the few grognards that do", and I'm not sure that you have evidence to back that up.

4) Beyond the new PHB, you don't know what they're working on. We didn't find out about Planescape until August, but they were clearly working on it much longer.

Oh ok. So then I'll just accept this vague nebulous point you're making that they can't work on Dark Sun because it would take time away from some other stuff that we don't know about, but that we all definitely want much more than Dark Sun. Like an MtG setting, or something...

*Looks back at all 5E material*

Yeah, I'm sure they're working on a lot right now...

5) Their goal is and always has been to make something that appeals to both old and new fans alike. Kyle's point was that threading that needle would be harder with a grimdark setting like Dark Sun (see #3.)

Why? I think you're looking at this through some sort of bias. Why are you assuming that new fans won't like Dark Sun?

Did Fury Road secretly flop in theaters or something?

Compete for development resources - see #1.

To make a product the consumer would rather buy?

[Psyren]

So we are slaves to those that find slavery problematic. *chef's kiss*

...Yes, you're at the mercy of WotC if you want WotC to print you something. Not sure why that might be surprising...?

Are they spending resources on Greyhawk?

No idea - we only have this year's release schedule, and Planescape is the big setting release.
But I can tell you one thing about Greyhawk - fans of it wouldn't be hoping WotC bans clerics and druids, instructing DMs to have their NPCs form an angry mob every time a wizard coughs in the open, etc.

I wouldn't worry about those guys though. Remember, you and Brookshw are downplaying the impact/needs of the old schoolers. So, if they are just a small group of grognards, that's fine. But don't pretend that their "inevitable" disappointment and outrage is then reason to not do something. They can't be "small potatoes" on the one hand and then "big shots" on the other.

Well if they're going to be mad either way, might as well have them be mad for free, i.e. without incurring a bunch of development costs.

[MoiMagnus]

I don't know too many young kids buying store-bought setting books with their allowance. I'm sure it happens, but how often?

When I played before, say, high school, we just made up our own content. We would use the base rules from whatever system we played. These books aren't cheap, and I suspect most kids under 13 or so aren't buying them on their own. They're Christmas gifts or something.

FWIW, my current D&D campaign has players ranging from 7 to 57.

Yes, they're Christmas/Birthday gifts. But that doesn't change much.

But without going to social commentary on parenting, I can definitely say that (1) a lot of parents disregard warnings on games they buy (2) more importantly even more parents will trust the homogeneity of a brand, so if you sell an official D&D5e book for Dark Sun they'll grab the D&D5e PHB, check that it is "safe for kid" and then assume that everything in the D&D brand is safe too.

And (2) is the main reason why a lot of companies try to be homogeneously kid-friendly, because it also works the other way around: parents looking at a Dark Sun book and deducing that every D&D book is like that.

[Note: while it might not seems like it, I'm also convinced that WotC concerns about DS are overblown. I'm just fundamentally unconvinced by the assumption that there will be an adult on most kid's table, and adult supervision on which D&D product to buy or not for those tables as long as they have the D&D brand on them.]

[Corvus]

Speaking as someone who works with kids everyday, the parents who are concerned by Dark Sun are going to also be concerned with d&d in general. Those that aren't concerned with d&d aren't likely to be worried by dark sun.

When you have 8 and 9 year olds allowed to watch things like Squid Games, Dark Sun isn't liable to phase them.

It's not the kids or parents who are going to be wringing their hands over Dark Sun.

[Dr.Samurai]

...Yes, you're at the mercy of WotC if you want WotC to print you something. Not sure why that might be surprising...?

I literally opened up my first post saying that I don't think it's WotC that has the problem, so I'm not sure where your disconnect is. Clearly it's not WotC, since they publish monsters (more than one) with an ability called Enslave.

No idea - we only have this year's release schedule, and Planescape is the big setting release.

Lol, yeah, I'm sure it's going to be massive, absolutely gigantic.

But I can tell you one thing about Greyhawk - fans of it wouldn't be hoping WotC bans clerics and druids, instructing DMs to have their NPCs form an angry mob every time a wizard coughs in the open, etc.

Yeah, agreed, and heaven forbid we introduce any sort of diversity in the campaign settings. We should definitely make sure that WotC only publishes "everything goes" settings.

Well if they're going to be mad either way, might as well have them be mad for free, i.e. without incurring a bunch of development costs.

Good point. Let me make sure I have all the talking points correct here:

1. Publishing takes time and money and it is too much to ask WotC to publish stuff that we want.
2. Old school fans are grumpy meany-heads that will never be satisfied, so trying to publish something they want to see is pointless. We should generally ignore them, unless they're complaining, then we should highlight what they're saying and doing.
3. New fans are just the best. They ARE D&D. They don't like anything that I don't like, and they won't like Dark Sun. Ergo, vis a vis, ispo facto, WotC shouldn't publish Dark Sun.
4. Dark Sun has bad things in it, done by bad people, that the PCs are trying to stop. This is problematic, in a way that is different to all the other bad stuff in D&D. Explanation not needed but point is, it shouldn't be published.
5. I might not be able to play clerics, druids, and wizards in Dark Sun so... it shouldn't be published.
6. There is a contingent of rogue children with purchasing power buying grim-dark campaign settings and playing them without adult supervision, and we must do everything we can to make sure they can't purchase a 5E Dark Sun.

I think I captured everything.

It's not the kids or parents who are going to be wringing their hands over Dark Sun.

100%

And (2) is the main reason why a lot of companies try to be homogeneously kid-friendly, because it also works the other way around: parents looking at a Dark Sun book and deducing that every D&D book is like that.

This is a good point. I would of course argue that D&D is not "kid-friendly" in any way that makes Dark Sun overly problematic. If a parent that thinks all D&D is "kid-friendly" walks into the room and pats their kid on the head and says "Dark Sun? What is that?" and the kid says "It's a desert planet ruled by these evil wizards that have everyone as slaves!" I don't think the parents are going to gasp and recoil in horror. It's really not a big deal. Especially if the kids are trying to take down those wizards.

[KorvinStarmast]

Preservers had to go out of their way to hide what they were, which made spellcasting tricky.

Yes. Practicing magic is dangerous. Even the Harry Potter books occasionally made that point, and that magic system is garbage (from a game perspective).

I wonder if you could use Sorcerers and Sorcery Points in place of psionics. Dragon Kings are both mages and psions, right?

That would be one way to do it, but I think that the introduction of the finally finished Psionics system would be a better.

I feel like you could also use Dark Sun as an excuse to actually make a psionics system though, maybe even one that acts as a parallel progression path for Dark Sun characters in particular, so its something unique to the setting

Thank you.

There are no drow or shadar-kai in Athas, so its a heck of a lot less edgelordy than most settings.

Thank goodness.

D&D is largely built around the premise of invading someone's home, murdering them when they resist just because they are ugly and/or green, and then taking all their stuff. Adventurers aren't called murderhobos for nothing. Looked at it in that light, the whole game is problematic. PCs cause more depopulation than almost any big bad, using violence to solve most problems and being very much might makes right,

WoTC D&D is largely about killing for XP, previous D&D was about getting gold/treasure for XP, with some for defeating/killing enemies. Granted, they were certainly headed toward what WotC eventually did in terms of XP awards, but WotC disincentivized the clever play of getting the treasure without having to leave a trail of carnage. There were other choices. WotC D&D is a bit more like Diablo (Blizzard, original game) in that respect.

The four WotC owned IP settings that aren't just "high fantasy with D&D's zero to demigod not even making sense in-setting" all over again are: Dragonlance, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, and Planescape.

DL isn't "high fantasy?" OK.

Preservers took extra time to gather their magic. This impacted their ability as combat casters. Defilers destroyed life to cast at normal speeds. Either one was a nerf to the Wizard. And that's before even the lethal/deadly social stigma that meant your character probably died as soon as they revealed their abilities.

And that's a cool feel.

3. We don't have psionics.
3a. Perfect opportunity to make a system.

Concur.

It's not the kids or parents who are going to be wringing their hands over Dark Sun.

Agree.

@Psyren: thanks for the link to that tweet on an attempt at 5e Dark Sun.
I wonder what kind of funding he'd need to get it off the ground.

[EggKookoo]

[Note: while it might not seems like it, I'm also convinced that WotC concerns about DS are overblown. I'm just fundamentally unconvinced by the assumption that there will be an adult on most kid's table, and adult supervision on which D&D product to buy or not for those tables as long as they have the D&D brand on them.]

I agree here, this is mostly a magic words issue. It reminds me of the South Park joke where Stan's dad described some aspect of society and Stan says "But dad, isn't that fascism?" And his dad says "No, because we don't call it fascism!"

Conventional D&D gameplay isn't problematic because we don't call it problematic.

[Brookshw]

This is a quality argument, and I made a similar one.

I don't think anyone's suggested DS would be well done by them.

The Lycanthropic Purge

The dragons wiped out all the titans and cursed the remaining few so that their progeny basically devolve each generation, so we now have standard D&D giants in Eberron.

The dragons and elves wiped out the entire line of the Vol family.

The Inspired want to wipe out all Kalashtar and have already wiped out one "lineage" of Kalashtar.

One of the Shadowmarked family wiped out a whole other Shadowmarked family.

There's a lot of "wiping out this whole group of people" going on in Eberron.

And most of these examples are within living memory, as opposed to way off in the distant distant distant past of the setting like in Dark Sun.

Sounds like a lot of unsuccessful attempts Even the "successes" sounds like something on par with the Montagues or Capulets finally winning and taking out the other side, not sure that's really the same thing.

I haven't been over this before actually, so happy to have the conversation.

I don't see what is not systemic about the slavery that drow, neogi, illithids, duergar, etc. engage in. I mean... they have to raid the surface world to replenish their slaves, they have powers that specifically enslave, they have special equipment for their slaves, etc.

As mentioned, WoTC is moving away from this in a lot of ways for any humonoid race, either making it small subsets of races/species engaging in such conduct (e.g., duergar in Mordenkainen's are expressly starting to move away from it), and even then, we're not talking about a broad setting wide presence of slavery.

I'm sure, that if we just count drow alone, there are more city-states in Forgotten Realms with slavery than there are on Athas. And that's one group of people, and below the surface.

Could be, I stopped really paying attention to FR after 2e, but I'm pretty sure it still has slavery free dale lands, 10 towns, silvermoon, Cormyr, etc. I suspect that would be a key difference, that one setting has slavery in certain places, and in the other its widespread and accepted across the setting with a rare few exceptions.

Uh sure. I guess that leaves us at "It seems to be my problem now that parents don't want their children playing certain games, but also don't supervise the purchases kids make, nor ever check on them to see what they've bought and what they're doing. And for this reason, this particular burden of parenting now falls on all D&D players to shoulder, as they can no longer have campaigns published that would be otherwise gated by parents."

I'm not going through that discussion again, see my previous exchanges with Keltest and NichG, though I will mention that I raised that as one, non-exclusive, example of why there can be a perception of problematic conduct in the game, its strange to me that you and Keltest spend so much time on that one example. Can you think of other examples of DS' setting people might think is problematic?

I don't know. But I highly doubt the "it's problematic" crowd are also the largest portion. Or even a big portion.

Well, its simply not possible for the TSR era players to be the largest part, sales volume post WoTC acquisition, and especially in 5e, demonstrates a massively expanded consumer base. Whether the "its problematic" crowd is the largest portion, frankly I doubt they are, my point since the start of this tangent (do we need a new thread for this at this point?) is that I can understand why WoTC is concerned. Also high horses can be turned into glue. Actually, mostly that the high horses can be turned into glue, the rest of this is a tangent to that which seems to be requiring far more ink than the topic is worth (because WoTC is going to release whatever they want regardless).

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree here, this is mostly a magic words issue. It reminds me of the South Park joke where Stan's dad described some aspect of society and Stan says "But dad, isn't that fascism?" And his dad says "No, because we don't call it fascism!"

Conventional D&D gameplay isn't problematic because we don't call it problematic.

Completely agreed.

Sounds like a lot of unsuccessful attempts Even the "successes" sounds like something on par with the Montagues or Capulets finally winning and taking out the other side, not sure that's really the same thing.

I get the impression that you have criteria for what is acceptable and not acceptable that you simply don't feel like sharing.

As mentioned, WoTC is moving away from this in a lot of ways for any humonoid race, either making it small subsets of races/species engaging in such conduct (e.g., duergar in Mordenkainen's are expressly starting to move away from it), and even then, we're not talking about a broad setting wide presence of slavery.

Could be, I stopped really paying attention to FR after 2e, but I'm pretty sure it still has slavery free dale lands, 10 towns, silvermoon, Cormyr, etc. I suspect that would be a key difference, that one setting has slavery in certain places, and in the other its widespread and accepted across the setting with a rare few exceptions.

Accepted wherever it's accepted. Obviously not accepted in Tyr, or, presumably, by the heroes. Sort of like any other setting.

I'm not going through that discussion again, see my previous exchanges with Keltest and NichG, though I will mention that I raised that as one, non-exclusive, example of why there can be a perception of problematic conduct in the game, its strange to me that you and Keltest spend so much time on that one example. Can you think of other examples of DS' setting people might think is problematic?

I'm not sure where you think I'm cherry-picking. I feel like I'm hitting all the objections being raised.

Well, its simply not possible for the TSR era players to be the largest part, sales volume post WoTC acquisition, and especially in 5e, demonstrates a massively expanded consumer base. Whether the "its problematic" crowd is the largest portion, frankly I doubt they are, my point since the start of this tangent (do we need a new thread for this at this point?) is that I can understand why WoTC is concerned.

I think it's more the assumption that only TSR people would appreciate Dark Sun, and that anyone else would so obviously take issue with it and require changes or for it not to be published at all. In other words, I don't assume need TSR era players to be the largest bloc of players. Because I don't assume most D&D players will take issue with Dark Sun.

Also high horses can be turned into glue. Actually, mostly that the high horses can be turned into glue, the rest of this is a tangent to that which seems to be requiring far more ink than the topic is worth (because WoTC is going to release whatever they want regardless).

Ok.

[Brookshw]

I get the impression that you have criteria for what is acceptable and not acceptable that you simply don't feel like sharing.

More that I'm questioning your definition of genocide.

Accepted wherever it's accepted. Obviously not accepted in Tyr, or, presumably, by the heroes. Sort of like any other setting.

so accepted in 90%? Also, don't presume what the players will or won't accept, people do strange things at times.

I'm not sure where you think I'm cherry-picking. I feel like I'm hitting all the objections being raised.

My question to you was "Can you think of other examples of DS' setting people [or WoTC] might think is problematic?", why do you think WoTC considers it problematic?

I think it's more the assumption that only TSR people would appreciate Dark Sun, and that anyone else would so obviously take issue with it and require changes or for it not to be published at all. In other words, I don't assume need TSR era players to be the largest bloc of players. Because I don't assume most D&D players will take issue with Dark Sun.

/Shrug, I don't know if most would, but today's markets aren't the same as the 90's, and the game design and settings has gone in a different direction as a result. The hurtle I don't see being overcome in your argument is why WoTC would better spend its resources here rather than elsewhere. Whatever the potential consumer base is, why would this outsell any other product which could be developed with the resources (including, potentially, other post-apocalypse settings which could be built from the ground up with whatever 'new and exciting' systems WoTC could add).

[Psyren]

I literally opened up my first post saying that I don't think it's WotC that has the problem, so I'm not sure where your disconnect is. Clearly it's not WotC, since they publish monsters (more than one) with an ability called Enslave.

Right, because monsters = campaign settings...

Yeah, agreed, and heaven forbid we introduce any sort of diversity in the campaign settings. We should definitely make sure that WotC only publishes "everything goes" settings.

I'm not against them catering to the more niche offerings you all want. Eventually. But expecting those to be the priority when they have a bunch of other stuff going on (such as, you know, an entire set of core books) is unrealistic.

1. Publishing takes time and money and it is too much to ask WotC to publish stuff that we want.
2. Old school fans are grumpy meany-heads that will never be satisfied, so trying to publish something they want to see is pointless. We should generally ignore them, unless they're complaining, then we should highlight what they're saying and doing.
3. New fans are just the best. They ARE D&D. They don't like anything that I don't like, and they won't like Dark Sun. Ergo, vis a vis, ispo facto, WotC shouldn't publish Dark Sun.
4. Dark Sun has bad things in it, done by bad people, that the PCs are trying to stop. This is problematic, in a way that is different to all the other bad stuff in D&D. Explanation not needed but point is, it shouldn't be published.
5. I might not be able to play clerics, druids, and wizards in Dark Sun so... it shouldn't be published.
6. There is a contingent of rogue children with purchasing power buying grim-dark campaign settings and playing them without adult supervision, and we must do everything we can to make sure they can't purchase a 5E Dark Sun.

I think I captured everything.

Not remotely.

1. You can ask for whatever you want. Just temper your asks with realism.
2. He never said they'd never revisit Dark Sun, just that it would likely take time.
3. I never said I was against Dark Sun, just that there are plenty of other things I'd like them to do first.
4. You yourself admitted that the other versions of those things are not the same as Dark Sun.
5. You need a damn good sales pitch if your opening salvo is "I want a setting where clerics/druids are nonexistent and most other casters have to hide all the time or be persecuted."
6. "We don't want to do this right now" != "We must do everything we can to make sure they can't purchase."

[Dr.Samurai]

More that I'm questioning your definition of genocide.

Oh. When people say "x people are committing genocide" it usually doesn't mean that all people are wiped out at that time. It's more like they are targeting a certain group with that in mind.

So Lycanthropic Purge, Giants, Aberrant marked characters in the War of the Mark, Kalashtar.

I can see the distinction you're making but I don't think it's very strong. And I HIGHLY doubt that anyone that thinks it's wrong in Dark Sun is going to accept this distinction.

so accepted in 90%? Also, don't presume what the players will or won't accept, people do strange things at times.

Accepted by who? I don't really know what this means. Are you suggesting that Dark Sun condones slavery or something?

My question to you was "Can you think of other examples of DS' setting people [or WoTC] might think is problematic?", why do you think WoTC considers it problematic?

I don't know. I go by what other people say. I generally don't find things to be "problematic". Things are either a problem, or they aren't, to varying degrees. If I had to throw something in the air as to what other people might have a problem with, I guess maybe scantily clad people running around in the desert? I truthfully don't know. Maybe you can elaborate for me. Your posts feel very coy at the moment.

WotC's problem, on the other hand, is the same problem every corporation is having right now. Vocal people on the internet. That's not surprising and shouldn't be a controversial statement.

/Shrug, I don't know if most would, but today's markets aren't the same as the 90's, and the game design and settings has gone in a different direction as a result. The hurtle I don't see being overcome in your argument is why WoTC would better spend its resources here rather than elsewhere. Whatever the potential consumer base is, why would this outsell any other product which could be developed with the resources (including, potentially, other post-apocalypse settings which could be built from the ground up with whatever 'new and exciting' systems WoTC could add).

I'm not plugged in to any metrics but... do you think Dark Sun would have been outperformed by Theros and Strixhaven? Because I keep seeing you guys treat this like Dark Sun is not worth the effort, but I don't know why. Also, you and Psyren are sort of vacillating between what we're talking about. My comment was is that there really isn't anything that problematic about Dark Sun and it's not a strong position to hold that Dark Sun is somehow beyond the pale while the rest of D&D isn't. You guys come in with "resources" and "competing with all these other things that WotC may or may not be doing", but that doesn't speak to the point being made. When I engage with that point about resources though, then it's "well it's a risk because it's problematic". Yeah, no kidding. No one is saying they have to do it right now and it needs to be at the top of their publishing list. My original point is that WotC is afraid of backlash, and it's difficult to understand having an issue with Dark Sun, but not having an issue with D&D generally.

Right, because monsters = campaign settings...

Again... I don't know what the disconnect is here apart from it's easier and safer to be coy than to actually speak to what your position is. Drow are slavers. There is an entire Underdark dominion in FR of dark elves enslaving other people. Alongside them are the Illithid doing the same thing. Aboleths also.

And in Spelljammer we have the Neogi, who are also slavers of the most depraved kind. These are campaign settings, with monsters in them, that enslave people, systemically.

Then we move to Dark Sun and we have Sorcerer Kings, who enslave people.

I'm not against them catering to the more niche offerings you all want. Eventually. But expecting those to be the priority when they have a bunch of other stuff going on (such as, you know, an entire set of core books) is unrealistic.

Sure sure sure.

I'll note again, that there are two different angles here. The first is taking issue with Dark Sun being "problematic". The second is taking issue with "literally anything WotC is working on will be more successful than Dark Sun".

[Segev]

Right, because monsters = campaign settings...

I mean, who's doing the enslaving if not monsters or NPCs? A setting is made up of elements, including creatures. Enslavement is inevitably going to involve creatures.

I don't think dismissing "monsters with enslavement abilities" as not counting because "monsters are not settings" is a valid nor convincing argument as to why a setting that features creatures enslaving each other is problematic, but monsters that enslave other creatures aren't. Those monsters appear in a setting, don't they?

[skyth]

Yeah, I've never actually seen a campaign where some players were from different age ranges.

The group I DM for is a mixed age range. I'm in my late 40's. Have another player that is around my age along with his son, who's 14. The rest of the players are in their mid 20's.

The difference in experiences is interesting for all parties involved.

[skyth]

While Dark Sun has some interesting lore, I'm not sure playing in it would be popular which would make it worth publishing. Especially with the backlash they got over how they neutered Spelljammer (Which I think is a more popular setting than Dark Sun, but that might just be my bias). I'm not sure any grognard-era setting would do well any more as people don't trust WotC to do the setting justice.

Personally, I'd rather see Birthright as a setting before Dark Sun, but I think it's popularity is on par with Dark Sun (And thus not enough to bother making).

Though, they should open up both systems to allow 3PP to make stuff for it. That wouldn't hurt anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think there's a lot of better places for their "effort" to go than some edgelordtopia niche

Tieflings are already core.

[Segev]

While Dark Sun has some interesting lore, I'm not sure playing in it would be popular which would make it worth publishing. Especially with the backlash they got over how they neutered Spelljammer (Which I think is a more popular setting than Dark Sun, but that might just be my bias). I'm not sure any grognard-era setting would do well any more as people don't trust WotC to do the setting justice.

Personally, I'd rather see Birthright as a setting before Dark Sun, but I think it's popularity is on par with Dark Sun (And thus not enough to bother making).

Though, they should open up both systems to allow 3PP to make stuff for it. That wouldn't hurt anything.

I mean, at least the central premise of Birthright is adaptable to other games. It's more a tacked-on extra source of power than anything else, even if the setting is built around it.

Heck, how do Birthright's birthrights compare to Eberron's Dragonmarks?



And the problem with Spelljammer 5e is that it was low-effort, removed flavor, replaced it with nothing, and had at most a couple of spells at items that were useful for trying the concept of the setting out. That could've been done in a pamphlet.

But that is true: whatever they'd do with Dark Sun would likely be grossly disappointing to anybody who liked the setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, at least the central premise of Birthright is adaptable to other games. It's more a tacked-on extra source of power than anything else, even if the setting is built around it. Heck, how do Birthright's birthrights compare to Eberron's Dragonmarks?

I will agree that Birthright can be folded into 5e, but would they put in the effort? With the SJ example, confidence is not high.

And the problem with Spelljammer 5e is that it was low-effort, removed flavor, replaced it with nothing, and had at most a couple of spells at items that were useful for trying the concept of the setting out. That could've been done in a pamphlet.

But that is true: whatever they'd do with Dark Sun would likely be grossly disappointing to anybody who liked the setting.

And tasha's, which has some good stuff, had a lot of sloppy work in it.

[Psyren]

Again... I don't know what the disconnect is here apart from it's easier and safer to be coy than to actually speak to what your position is. Drow are slavers. There is an entire Underdark dominion in FR of dark elves enslaving other people. Alongside them are the Illithid doing the same thing. Aboleths also.

Sure - but in FR, it's each DM's choice if they want to set their entire campaign in Menzoberranzan or the Underdark. And brand new players/DMs are highly unlikely to start out in such disconcerting places; the ones who don't, have plenty else to do in places like the Sword Coast, at least until they get settled in to this whole D&D thing. Dark Sun is not nearly so variegated - it's a grimdark setting and everywhere is terrible. The closest analogue we currently have is Ravenloft, and even Ravenloft isn't telling you to leave your Life Cleric, Devotion Paladin, or Evoker Wizard at the door.

I'll note again, that there are two different angles here. The first is taking issue with Dark Sun being "problematic". The second is taking issue with "literally anything WotC is working on will be more successful than Dark Sun".

You're right, I don't definitively know that it would be less successful - but I do know it's kneecapped right at the starting line. The very nature of the setting meaning that people will expect it to dump a number of the existing classes as player options and come up with new ones before it can even start to feel authentic. That was easy in 4e when there were really only 4 classes (Defender, Leader, Controller, Striker) with various permutations that largely boiled down to fluff/power source, so adding a few new ones and calling them "psionic" was not a lot of design work, but that's not really the case with 5e.

[skyth]

I mean, at least the central premise of Birthright is adaptable to other games. It's more a tacked-on extra source of power than anything else, even if the setting is built around it.

Heck, how do Birthright's birthrights compare to Eberron's Dragonmarks?

Not sure. I know nothing about Eberron pretty much. But it's not just tacked on power. Human wizards, unless they were blooded, were considerably weaker than normal wizards (If memory serves, for spells of 3rd level and higher, they only had access to illusion, and maybe divination?, magic).

Plus there's the problematic elements inherent in the setting where unless you're born with the right bloodline, you're not allowed to be in charge of anything and are automatically less special. If you're born with the wrong bloodline, you're a bad guy and physically corrupted by it.

Plus the whole schtick to hunt other blooded people and ritually kill them in a special way to steal their power and make it yours.

[Brookshw]

Oh. When people say "x people are committing genocide" it usually doesn't mean that all people are wiped out at that time. It's more like they are targeting a certain group with that in mind.

So Lycanthropic Purge, Giants, Aberrant marked characters in the War of the Mark, Kalashtar.

I can see the distinction you're making but I don't think it's very strong. And I HIGHLY doubt that anyone that thinks it's wrong in Dark Sun is going to accept this distinction.

Got it. Some of those I get meet the standard definition I expect, I think its the "family" part that is particularly throwing me. So far as DS vs. Eberron, I can't say whether the people who might be offended by DS would also be offended by Eberron, but I do suspect there's difference in so far as DS's motivation was that certain races' existence was deemed by Rajaat to be...polluting? Is that that the word? the world, and that to make things better they all need to be exterminated. (wasn't the lycanthropic purge a result of them basically attacking people all over the place, and vol for being a bunch of necromantic generally evil people? Don't recall any details about the rest)

Accepted by who? I don't really know what this means. Are you suggesting that Dark Sun condones slavery or something?

Oh, sorry, an accepted practice is 90% of the setting.

I don't know. I go by what other people say. I generally don't find things to be "problematic". Things are either a problem, or they aren't, to varying degrees. If I had to throw something in the air as to what other people might have a problem with, I guess maybe scantily clad people running around in the desert? I truthfully don't know. Maybe you can elaborate for me. Your posts feel very coy at the moment.

WotC's problem, on the other hand, is the same problem every corporation is having right now. Vocal people on the internet. That's not surprising and shouldn't be a controversial statement.

Its a real question for you about whether you think some of the aspects could be perceived as problematic, and which. No need to be coy on my part, I've already listed a handful of things which I could understand being perceived as problematic (as an additional example, all jungle dwelling primitives being cannibals). I can only guess on my part, and would like to hear your guesses.

I'm not plugged in to any metrics but... do you think Dark Sun would have been outperformed by Theros and Strixhaven? Because I keep seeing you guys treat this like Dark Sun is not worth the effort, but I don't know why. Also, you and Psyren are sort of vacillating between what we're talking about. My comment was is that there really isn't anything that problematic about Dark Sun and it's not a strong position to hold that Dark Sun is somehow beyond the pale while the rest of D&D isn't. You guys come in with "resources" and "competing with all these other things that WotC may or may not be doing", but that doesn't speak to the point being made. When I engage with that point about resources though, then it's "well it's a risk because it's problematic". Yeah, no kidding. No one is saying they have to do it right now and it needs to be at the top of their publishing list. My original point is that WotC is afraid of backlash, and it's difficult to understand having an issue with Dark Sun, but not having an issue with D&D generally.

Not sure anyone's vacillating so much as there are multiple conversations going on (I mean, my original point was that people weren't going to suddenly become morally bankrupt people who forget genocide and slavery are bad if DS isn't published, and now here we are). I'm sure WoTC is afraid of backlash, that concern makes them look at the ROI, they look for the biggest ROI they can get, determine that involves minimizing problematic content, so it makes more sense for them to produce content that is less likely to be perceived as problematic so they can enjoy the biggest ROI. The points are related. As to whether D&D has certain problematic issues in other settings, goes back to what/how you run your games and the extent such context exists within a setting I expect. I don't know anything about Theros and Strixhaven, but I'm guessing that an opportunity to bring people into D&D from MTG (Strix is MTG, right? Is Theros?) offers a higher ROI than marketing to people who only play D&D.

[Corvus]

I find the argument against Dark Sun on economic or popularity grounds an odd one, given WotC just released Spelljammer, which was even more niche than Dark Sun back in the 2e days. And Dark Sun had a 4e release as well, which Spelljammer never did, one that was both well received and one of their best sellers for 4e.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure - but in FR, it's each DM's choice if they want to set their entire campaign in Menzoberranzan or the Underdark. And brand new players/DMs are highly unlikely to start out in such disconcerting places; the ones who don't, have plenty else to do in places like the Sword Coast, at least until they get settled in to this whole D&D thing. Dark Sun is not nearly so variegated - it's a grimdark setting and everywhere is terrible.

Again, we're hopping around to... which point? I don't know.

Because Kyle didn't say that Dark Sun was too disconcerting for newbies and they needed to settle in first before they were exposed to grimdark. He didn't mention anything about class restrictions. He said it's "problematic". He also said "we know it has a huge fan following", as opposed to "it's just a bunch of grumpy grognards that we should ignore right out".

You're right, I don't definitively know that it would be less successful - but I do know it's kneecapped right at the starting line. The very nature of the setting meaning that people will expect it to dump a number of the existing classes as player options and come up with new ones before it can even start to feel authentic. That was easy in 4e when there were really only 4 classes (Defender, Leader, Controller, Striker) with various permutations that largely boiled down to fluff/power source, so adding a few new ones and calling them "psionic" was not a lot of design work, but that's not really the case with 5e.

5E is designed so that you literally don't need any class. You can't be a cleric, and you can't be a paladin. That's it. Artificer is probably out as well, but it sort of has that distinction already.

Bard? Yes.
Barbarian? Yes.
Druid? Yes.
Fighter? Yes.
Monk? Yes.
Ranger? Yes.
Rogue? Yes.
Sorcerer? Yes.
Warlock? I'd say this is probably a good analogue for templars with Sorcerer King Pacts (maybe turn them into divine casters).
Wizard? Yes.

The groups I play with wouldn't bat a single eyelash if someone wanted to run Dark Sun and said "no artificers, clerics, or paladins". Because this type of stuff happens in home games too. I really don't know where you're getting these expectations from.

Got it. Some of those I get meet the standard definition I expect, I think its the "family" part that is particularly throwing me. So far as DS vs. Eberron, I can't say whether the people who might be offended by DS would also be offended by Eberron, but I do suspect there's difference in so far as DS's motivation was that certain races' existence was deemed by Rajaat to be...polluting? Is that that the word? the world, and that to make things better they all need to be exterminated. (wasn't the lycanthropic purge a result of them basically attacking people all over the place, and vol for being a bunch of necromantic generally evil people? Don't recall any details about the rest)

Ok so it sounds like you do in fact see some sort of distinction here worth mentioning. Apparently, Rajaat wanting to cleanse the world and return it to the halflings is more concerning than any lich king that wants to wipe everyone out, or every archdevil that wants to enslave everyone's soul, or every other generic D&D supervillain that wants to do very evil things to everyone in the world. I guess we will have to disagree on this. I don't think this is a particularly strong exception to take with Dark Sun. The motive appears to be the issue here I guess, which seems very... nitpicky to me.

Its a real question for you about whether you think some of the aspects could be perceived as problematic, and which. No need to be coy on my part, I've already listed a handful of things which I could understand being perceived as problematic (as an additional example, all jungle dwelling primitives being cannibals). I can only guess on my part, and would like to hear your guesses.

But it's something I would really have trouble answering. It would have never occurred to meet that the halflings would be considered problematic. These things strike me as arbitrary associations to arrive a predetermined conclusion.

Not sure anyone's vacillating so much as there are multiple conversations going on (I mean, my original point was that people weren't going to suddenly become morally bankrupt people who forget genocide and slavery are bad if DS isn't published, and now here we are). I'm sure WoTC is afraid of backlash, that concern makes them look at the ROI, they look for the biggest ROI they can get, determine that involves minimizing problematic content, so it makes more sense for them to produce content that is less likely to be perceived as problematic so they can enjoy the biggest ROI. The points are related. As to whether D&D has certain problematic issues in other settings, goes back to what/how you run your games and the extent such context exists within a setting I expect. I don't know anything about Theros and Strixhaven, but I'm guessing that an opportunity to bring people into D&D from MTG (Strix is MTG, right? Is Theros?) offers a higher ROI than marketing to people who only play D&D.

I'm not disagreeing. I understand that problematic content would be a risk (in theory). I'm not arguing that they should publish it regardless of the risk.

I find the argument against Dark Sun on economic or popularity grounds an odd one, given WotC just released Spelljammer, which was even more niche than Dark Sun back in the 2e days. And Dark Sun had a 4e release as well, which Spelljammer never did, one that was both well received and one of their best sellers for 4e.

It seems like that's the argument they're making, but apparently they're just pointing out that, so long as WotC considers Dark Sun problematic on behalf of concern-mongers, it would be risky for them to publish it.

Am I skeptical that WotC can survive this OGL nonsense but publishing Dark Sun would destroy them? No, actually, not really. Vocal people online have taken up some very interesting perspectives since Dark Sun was last published 12 years ago.

[Corvus]

5E is designed so that you literally don't need any class. You can't be a cleric, and you can't be a paladin. That's it. Artificer is probably out as well, but it sort of has that distinction already.

Bard? Yes.
Barbarian? Yes.
Druid? Yes.
Fighter? Yes.
Monk? Yes.
Ranger? Yes.
Rogue? Yes.
Sorcerer? Yes.
Warlock? I'd say this is probably a good analogue for templars with Sorcerer King Pacts (maybe turn them into divine casters).
Wizard? Yes.

No clerics is a bit odd because there have always been clerics in Dark Sun. What there weren't was gods. It was never fully resolved if there had never been any or they had died off - 4e went the later but 2e let it remain a mystery. What clerics followed were the elements.

4e went with the templars as warlocks route. In the context of how mechanics had changed from 2e days, it was a good move. It made a lot of sense.

If you stick to the very initial description of Dark Sun, before all the metaplot came along, then some of the concerns won't exist. (I'm not a fan of the metaplot introduced later personally, so I just tend to ignore it.)

[Dr.Samurai]

No clerics is a bit odd because there have always been clerics in Dark Sun. What there weren't was gods. It was never fully resolved if there had never been any or they had died off - 4e went the later but 2e let it remain a mystery. What clerics followed were the elements.

4e went with the templars as warlocks route. In the context of how mechanics had changed from 2e days, it was a good move. It made a lot of sense.

If you stick to the very initial description of Dark Sun, before all the metaplot came along, then some of the concerns won't exist. (I'm not a fan of the metaplot introduced later personally, so I just tend to ignore it.)

Yeah, you're right. Looking at my 4th edition Campaign Guide, it has a sidebar about divine characters and how they don't exist but gives you a few options if you really want to play a divine character.

But looking at the 2E Dark Sun campaign setting, it literally says that there are three types of priests; clerics, druids, and templars. And clerics draw divine energy from the elements. That makes sense since that's the source of the templars power too, I think, through the Sorcerer Kings.

2E lists the following as playable classes:

Fighter
Ranger
Gladiator
Wizard (preserver or defiler)
Illusionist (preserver or defiler)
Cleric
Templar
Druid
Thief
Bard
Psionicist

So we're missing... artificer, barbarian, paladin, sorcerer, and warlock.

Warlock seems extremely close to the templars. Barbarians seems very easy to slot in. Sorcerers, well, wasn't Sadira a sorceress in the books? Seems easy enough to me as well. Artificers and paladins seem out, though I suppose there can be a sort of crusading warrior of an element (earth knight, water knight, air knight, fire knight).

So really seems like artificer, which is fine, since that was created for a campaign setting that's basically in the opposite direction of Dark Sun, and probably paladin, though honestly given that the templar powers are divine, and they are sworn to the Sorcerer King, a paladin oath of the templars seems right on point too.

[Witty Username]

Paladin didn't exist in Dark Sun for thematic reasons, replaced by the setting specific Gladiator.

Artificer, nope, not having that. Prewriting society and stone age astectics don't jive well. But they weren't invented until 3.5, so it wouldn't be a strict problem like paladin. Just weird.

Sorcerers don't fit in any setting, but they primarily didn't exist in Dark Sun as they weren't codified yet. Sorcerer, Wizard and Mage are more or less interchangeable terms in AD&D. The Sorcerer kings are defiler/pscionisist splits with one exception because they swapped to preserver/pscionisist. Also, draconic bloodline is out due to dragons not existing in Dark Sun, there is Dragon, but not dragons.