It's hard to reconcile "this thing was so awesome" with "this thing is trauma-inducing." I'd go so far as to say those two statements are mutually exclusive.
If it ever gets revamped for 5E (or a future edition) it will still be plenty awesome without the gross, toxic bits.
Both of those are purely subjective. I really don't like the idea of DS and the very way people are "praising" it is only further convincing me that I wouldn't enjoy it. It's not trauma-inducing (for me), Jurassic Park was more trauma-inducing for me. It just sounds to edgy and I play D&D to escape reality and it's dreariness.
That's valid. It's not everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't have to be. But as someone who would like to see it adapted for 5E, I'm 100% good with leaving out the gross, toxic parts that would make the setting unwelcoming to people who otherwise would like to play D&D, but in a post-apocalyptic desert where nobody has swords or water. I don't want to drive away people who are good with the grittier, survival-themed tone but whose play experience would be ruined by the unnecessary inclusion of topics like slavery and genocide. There are elements - especially the gross, toxic ones - that are edgy and that edginess sometimes gets confused for making it mature when it really, really doesn't.
It's hard to reconcile "this thing was so awesome" with "this thing is trauma-inducing." I'd go so far as to say those two statements are mutually exclusive.
If it ever gets revamped for 5E (or a future edition) it will still be plenty awesome without the gross, toxic bits.
Gross and toxic by whose definition? If you don't like a module, or a session, or how a group runs their game in general, don't engage with it. I find rap music gross and toxic, and don't engage with it. But I don't demand, nor expect, that genre will abolished, nor altered, to meet my tastes.
Several people in this discussion thread have identified problematic elements with the Dark Sun setting, primarily the slavery and genocide parts in the lore. They're unnecessary and don't foster inclusion around the tabletop. The setting loses none of its appeal by removing them.
Ultimately it's WotC's product, and for 5E so far they've declined to sell a Dark Sun product. If they change that decision and announce a Dark Sun setting for 5E I'll be interested, but I'll be less likely to get it if it keeps the slavery and genocide parts that are going to make my players not want to play in that sandbox.
Here is the reality: Settings are rules agnostic. They are collections of lore, not mechanics, and you can transplant lore into whatever system you choose. Then it is a simple matter of making sure you limit the mechanics of your chosen system (or add to them, such as by using the5e playtest content for Mystic, a psionic class built for a potential 5e Dark Sun revival). If you want to play Dark Sun in 5e, no one is stopping you.
Granted, why anyone would want to play Dark Sun is beyond me - the entire setting is basically what an edgelord teenager would create if they wanted to jam as many edgy cliches into a single setting. But, to each their own, I suppose.
Now, should Wizards bring it back officially? I think it would be nice to have an official world that is a bit darker and more dangerous than other official worlds. But I do not think it should be Dark Sun. If they update the plane to remove the unnecessarily edgy elements, they’ll alienate the existing fans of the game (though, in my personal experience, most Dark Sun fans are the same kind of players that make the rest of us in the hobby look bad). If they keep the original level of teenager edge, they will release a product that makes them look bad and undoes their efforts to distance themselves from the game’s bigoted past.
No real winning with a true Dark Sun revival; they’d be better off making a new world with a similar feel.. or just partnering with the many third-parties who have grimdark worlds (which is what Wizards seems to be doing already).
It wouldn’t be an added variant. There’s already rules for carrying capacities and how much things weigh, just no one uses it, because, well, it’s not very fun and people aren’t into the bookkeeping. Honestly, most of us never were, I don’t think. I know I never tracked encumbrance and I’ve been playing since the early 80’s. (Obviously, this is anecdotal and it’s very possible I’m in the minority here.)
My point was that they could add a variant that was easier to manage at the table than tracking pounds. Or more dynamic, such as one tied to dice. Something more fun that serves as a minigame and less just marking boxes.
Or, really, Dark Sun could just be the setting where that stuff matters. Where they use the rules that are in the book.
What they’d need for a variant is a psionic system that’s more robust than 3 subclasses, but the various attempts they’ve made at that over the past few years haven’t gotten past the UA phase.
If they were doing the setting there'd be more incentive for a robust psionic system. Although, there are the 3 subclasses AND the feats. And it wouldn't be hard to add more origin feats.
Just like with Theros where characters just started with an extra feat because they were practically gods. In Dark Sun you could pick from a list of feats that include numerous psionic options. Then they just need to add a psionicist wizard and they're golden.
Gross and toxic by whose definition? If you don't like a module, or a session, or how a group runs their game in general, don't engage with it. I find rap music gross and toxic, and don't engage with it. But I don't demand, nor expect, that genre will abolished, nor altered, to meet my tastes.
Gross and toxic by Western society that has kinda, sorta decided that slavery is bad. And that genocide is bad. And forced breeding programs are bad.
While it's wholly possible to not run a module or setting if you don't like it's contents or themes, Wizards of the Coast releases a finite number of books each year. So releasing a problematic book rather than non-problematic book means releasing material that a lot of their audience will be turned off by.
This is an issue for a couple reasons. Firstly, it creates negative press. The conversation becomes about how WotC is releasing controversial books or slavery simulator settings. Even if the arguments are dubious (as the sorcerer-kings and templars are the antagonists) it creates negative buzz. Second, WotC is a business. Their goal is to produce books that the largest percentage of their audience will buy. They don't make books for small niche groups. A book full of problematic content with content that can't easily be used in other games that employs gameplay many groups don't use might not be a huge seller.
Bob the World Builder:"I feel like I know the answer to this, but 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 in a lot of ways (BtWB: "I agree, yeah") and that's the main reason we haven't come back to it. We know it's got a huge fan following.”
Bob the World Builder:"That's totally a fair point, and I think that's already, kind of the consensus, people just wanted to hear somebody say it."
Bob's immediate concurrence precluded any further elaboration, but this thread shows it's not too hard to see what KB might have had in mind.
Gross and toxic by whose definition? If you don't like a module, or a session, or how a group runs their game in general, don't engage with it. I find rap music gross and toxic, and don't engage with it. But I don't demand, nor expect, that genre will abolished, nor altered, to meet my tastes.
WotC choosing not to prioritize 1st-party products in a given setting is not "abolishing" that setting. DM's Guild exists if you want to publish (or fund the publication of) Dark Sun product that badly, and there's always homebrew for your personal table.
I was a child when I started to read "Endless Quest" gamebooks, and in the second book "The mountain of the mirrors" there was slavery.
WotC wants to sell sourcebooks more focused into the crunch, because the players don't want to spend money into expensive books about the lore when this is read once.
An update of the crunch part is possible, but my opinion is WotC would rather to start from zero with a spiritual sucessor not only for more creative freedom but also because players are more willing to pay for a unknown lore that hasn't be published yet in the fandom wiki web.
Other option is to create a mixed setting, merging two previous ones, for example Dragonlance and DS. Let's imagine after the reboot of D&D multiverse by Vecna (when he caused all those troubles in Sigil) some widlspaces or alternate timelines were altered, and then the chronomancers and the time dragons tried to save their lairs... and not all worked totally well. Also because "Chaos" found some time of "planar backdoor" toward the Athasian tablelands. Here the adventage is players can't safe what are going to face. Maybe a famous sorcerer-king now is a chromatic dragon, or an infernal half-dragon. WotC only had to write some pages and publish some pictures, like an article from Dragon Magazine, unlocking in DM Guild, and allowing the fandom to tell their own fanfic ideas.
Other idea is Athas is a demiplane created in the Green Age. The Brown Tide couldn't be stopped, and then the only option was to create a demiplane. Then we have got two Athas, the one we know and the original destroyed by the Brown Tide. And some external power offered some deal to Rajaat. Then this traveled to the past and agreed a truce with the champions. These would be the rulers of the demiplane, but the original Athas should be cleaned to return to the blue age.
And my last suggestion is a module or adventure where PCs from other setting can visit briefly the Athasian tablelands.
WotC choosing not to prioritize 1st-party products in a given setting is not "abolishing" that setting. DM's Guild exists if you want to publish (or fund the publication of) Dark Sun product that badly, and there's always homebrew for your personal table.
Bob the World Builder:"I feel like I know the answer to this, but 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 in a lot of ways (BtWB: "I agree, yeah") and that's the main reason we haven't come back to it. We know it's got a huge fan following.”
Bob the World Builder:"That's totally a fair point, and I think that's already, kind of the consensus, people just wanted to hear somebody say it."
Bob's immediate concurrence precluded any further elaboration, but this thread shows it's not too hard to see what KB might have had in mind.
Gross and toxic by whose definition? If you don't like a module, or a session, or how a group runs their game in general, don't engage with it. I find rap music gross and toxic, and don't engage with it. But I don't demand, nor expect, that genre will abolished, nor altered, to meet my tastes.
WotC choosing not to prioritize 1st-party products in a given setting is not "abolishing" that setting. DM's Guild exists if you want to publish (or fund the publication of) Dark Sun product that badly, and there's always homebrew for your personal table.
And wotc has every legal right as a corporation to decide not to publish, or to publish, anything the leaders of wotc decide to. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with posters coming to a site and stating that something which is problematic for that individual is problematic for all. No, we will not see a wotc endorsed Dark Sun setting.
You’re missing the point of people calling it problematic: despite what some people have tried to claim there is no big conspiracy to cancel the presence of slavery, genocide, etc in fiction full-stop. However, WotC/Hasbro’s longstanding business models for the content they’re going to produce aren’t compatible with settings where those elements are normalized even in the “this is how you can tell it’s a dystopia” sense, ergo the fact that those elements are significant cornerstones of the setting would present problems with going forward.
Here is the reality: Settings are rules agnostic. They are collections of lore, not mechanics, and you can transplant lore into whatever system you choose. Then it is a simple matter of making sure you limit the mechanics of your chosen system (or add to them, such as by using the5e playtest content for Mystic, a psionic class built for a potential 5e Dark Sun revival). If you want to play Dark Sun in 5e, no one is stopping you.
Granted, why anyone would want to play Dark Sun is beyond me - the entire setting is basically what an edgelord teenager would create if they wanted to jam as many edgy cliches into a single setting. But, to each their own, I suppose.
Now, should Wizards bring it back officially? I think it would be nice to have an official world that is a bit darker and more dangerous than other official worlds. But I do not think it should be Dark Sun. If they update the plane to remove the unnecessarily edgy elements, they’ll alienate the existing fans of the game (though, in my personal experience, most Dark Sun fans are the same kind of players that make the rest of us in the hobby look bad). If they keep the original level of teenager edge, they will release a product that makes them look bad and undoes their efforts to distance themselves from the game’s bigoted past.
No real winning with a true Dark Sun revival; they’d be better off making a new world with a similar feel.. or just partnering with the many third-parties who have grimdark worlds (which is what Wizards seems to be doing already).
Even if Dark Sun itself never came back due to the problematic elements, I'd still want an official post apocalyptic gritty survival based setting to fill that void.
Here is the reality: Settings are rules agnostic. They are collections of lore, not mechanics, and you can transplant lore into whatever system you choose. Then it is a simple matter of making sure you limit the mechanics of your chosen system (or add to them, such as by using the5e playtest content for Mystic, a psionic class built for a potential 5e Dark Sun revival). If you want to play Dark Sun in 5e, no one is stopping you.
Granted, why anyone would want to play Dark Sun is beyond me - the entire setting is basically what an edgelord teenager would create if they wanted to jam as many edgy cliches into a single setting. But, to each their own, I suppose.
Now, should Wizards bring it back officially? I think it would be nice to have an official world that is a bit darker and more dangerous than other official worlds. But I do not think it should be Dark Sun. If they update the plane to remove the unnecessarily edgy elements, they’ll alienate the existing fans of the game (though, in my personal experience, most Dark Sun fans are the same kind of players that make the rest of us in the hobby look bad). If they keep the original level of teenager edge, they will release a product that makes them look bad and undoes their efforts to distance themselves from the game’s bigoted past.
No real winning with a true Dark Sun revival; they’d be better off making a new world with a similar feel.. or just partnering with the many third-parties who have grimdark worlds (which is what Wizards seems to be doing already).
Even if Dark Sun itself never came back due to the problematic elements, I'd still want an official post apocalyptic gritty survival based setting to fill that void.
“Gritty survival” is a little hard to run on core 5e when a 1st level spell checks off two of the big survival pillars and a 3rd level ritual can check off another. Obviously they could theoretically write up a bunch of overhaul/alt rules to be used with the setting, but the past 10 years have shown a distinct lack of 1st party content that proposes such sweeping changes to the core dynamics. There’s the DMG sections, but that’s about it. Given that, I think a hard survival bent setting with supporting rules isn’t in the cards. Now, I could definitely see them doing a fantastic desert type setting with a “hard lands make for hard people” theme and thoroughly grey on gray factions, but I don’t think they’ll write a setting book specifically designed to produce an environment where PCs have to struggle for daily necessities.
And wotc has every legal right as a corporation to decide not to publish, or to publish, anything the leaders of wotc decide to. I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with posters coming to a site and stating that something which is problematic for that individual is problematic for all. No, we will not see a wotc endorsed Dark Sun setting.
It's clearly not a single individual or small group of "posters" that see these problems though, otherwise Kyle Brink would not have made the statement he did. His concern wasn't conjured out of thin air, it's reflective of the company's official perspective on the issue. And the speed with which he answered Bob's question indicates these are active conversations they've been having - it's not like he went "Dark Sun, what's that?" or had to wrack his brain for an answer etc.
1) Personal homebrew for DS enthusiasts to run at their own tables.
2) Ravenloft IS on the list, so just set a campaign in Hazlan, which is pretty much Athas in all but name, and file the serial numbers off. You can include a wink-nudge sidebar that says "This campaign is suitable for other post-magopocalyptic desert settings ruled by powerful evil spellcasters where resources are scarce and magic-use is frowned on, hint-hint-hint."
“Gritty survival” is a little hard to run on core 5e when a 1st level spell checks off two of the big survival pillars and a 3rd level ritual can check off another.
Well, it's not that hard to provide a list of modified or unavailable spells -- offhand, the 'modify or remove' list comes down to
“Gritty survival” is a little hard to run on core 5e when a 1st level spell checks off two of the big survival pillars and a 3rd level ritual can check off another.
Well, it's not that hard to provide a list of modified or unavailable spells -- offhand, the 'modify or remove' list comes down to
which isn't an any bigger than the list of spells modified in Ravenloft.
Point, though the circumstances are somewhat different. If I’m looking at the right section, what’s affected in Ravenloft is planar travel spells, which is a segment of the game more heavily run by the DM in any case, rather than spells designed for more day-to-day utility. It’s not like Cure Wounds or Protection from Evil and Good are blocked or mechanically altered.
“Gritty survival” is a little hard to run on core 5e when a 1st level spell checks off two of the big survival pillars and a 3rd level ritual can check off another.
Well, it's not that hard to provide a list of modified or unavailable spells -- offhand, the 'modify or remove' list comes down to
which isn't an any bigger than the list of spells modified in Ravenloft.
Point, though the circumstances are somewhat different. If I’m looking at the right section, what’s affected in Ravenloft is planar travel spells, which is a segment of the game more heavily run by the DM in any case, rather than spells designed for more day-to-day utility. It’s not like Cure Wounds or Protection from Evil and Good are blocked or mechanically altered.
Another option would be something like faerzress from Out of the Abyss - something that provides a potential detriment to magic use. Adjusting the risk factor on such an effect (or doing something like making the risk increase with each spell cast) could really skew the math on whether that Goodberry is worthwhile.
Plenty of ways to use existing mechanisms to produce a more gritty survival-style game—if that is what you and your players want.
You know how many games, and not just D&D, I have played in where slavery, genocide, whatever nasty concept someone does not like in the REAL WORLD, still exist in the game, and most often, the PC's or entity controlled by the player is fighting against it????
What's your point? That because one game includes it, allgames have to include it?
But even if the player is running in some game where a particular game mechanic is actually an inherent part of the game (Warhammer comes to mind) that some people in the REAL WORLD don't like, so what?
Just because something happens in the real world, doesn't mean people want it in their escapist fantasy. Pedophilia is far too common in the real world but I don't think it has a place in D&D.
Keep politics out of games. They are not the same thing.
For YOU it's "politics." For other people it's a painful memory of their family's tragedy. It's who they are. And they might not like it being milked for the entertainment value of others. (And the financial gain of WotC.)
And spoiler: adding it would be just as political. Just because it's the default for you doesn't mean it's not political for someone else.
Do you refuse to play Civilization because you can win by crushing every other civ using military might, or win by culturally assimilating said civ's? Do you demand that those methods of winning that game be removed?
Many people feel Civilization glorifies colonialism and presents a solely western view of what constitutes "progress." That's a longstanding complaint. Not a great example.
* In 5e magic can help a lot to survive, but we don't need to ban those powers.
For example the living constructs PC species usually don't need food or water but in DS there is a "plague" by an elemental fungus, and then the living construct PCs (for example shardminds) need water and special herbs to stop or heal the elemental infection.
The druid can create food and water to save the group, but... if this goes to the city the templars can sense when somebody is a divine or primal spellcaster (really when somebody has casted a divine or primal spell in the last 24 hours). Some wild Athasian predators also can sense it, and this means if you use too much you could attract the attetion of hunter monsters, or worse. There are "urban legends" about dark feys who sense divine and primal spellcasters and then these are abducted toward their realms in the "land within the wind".
Other point is the life-shaping craft. Maybe you don't need magic when there are some biopunk artifact to purify water.
* One of the most important elements of the metaplot are the characters, heroes and villains. Without these the IP has got less brand power. I guess these could be recycled in a new continuity, something like the different remakes of that cartoon show.
* Some retcons could be necessary everyway, for example written languange is allowed, at least to publish warning posters about some new law, but certain alphabet is "forbidden" and only a little group is allowed to use it. And slaves can't be owned by individuals but only by the "state". Then wicked players aren't allowed to buy slaves to create a harem. (What is doing here that halfling, pervert?!).
* Could Rajaat to be chosen by the Dark Powers to become a new dark lord? The domain would be Athas in the blue age, but fighting against some remains of the brown tide, and the no-halflings aren't wellcome but these are reappearing from halfings suffering mutations time after time.
* What if there is a new transitional setting about chronomancers and an alternate Athaspace was one of the batlefields among different time-traveler factions?
Another option would be something like faerzress from Out of the Abyss - something that provides a potential detriment to magic use.
Problem with keying it to magic use in general is that anything potent enough to make those spells not just 'remove survival as an issue' will probably make spellcasters unplayable, because if two first level spells per day (one casting of create water, one casting of goodberry) is too dangerous... so is pretty much anything else you'd do as a spellcaster. Better to hit the specific problem spells (this is not to say you can't also attach other risks to magic, they just have to scaled in a manageable way).
It would be one solution, but it would also be a notable departure from their past models. Like I said, so far the extent of their vetoing spells/spell effects on a setting basis is just planar travel stuff, which is not only something the DM has a lot of scope over, but also one that's commonly accepted as something that can be blocked by a given area as what amount to an environmental feature. Cherry-picking low-level utility spells is a different proposition. Not inherently bad, just not something they've chosen to pursue so far. Honestly, if I did want to cut back on it, easiest way is to just implement the grim and gritty rest rules so producing food is a real investment of resources- particularly when it takes 7 times longer for the slot to come back than the food will last. Leaves the Hut, but frankly night ambushes are more tedious than anything in play imo and the game doesn't have sufficient crunch or skill granularity to make "work out how you have shelter for the night" an engaging proposition on anything like a regular basis.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's valid. It's not everyone's cup of tea, and it doesn't have to be. But as someone who would like to see it adapted for 5E, I'm 100% good with leaving out the gross, toxic parts that would make the setting unwelcoming to people who otherwise would like to play D&D, but in a post-apocalyptic desert where nobody has swords or water. I don't want to drive away people who are good with the grittier, survival-themed tone but whose play experience would be ruined by the unnecessary inclusion of topics like slavery and genocide. There are elements - especially the gross, toxic ones - that are edgy and that edginess sometimes gets confused for making it mature when it really, really doesn't.
Several people in this discussion thread have identified problematic elements with the Dark Sun setting, primarily the slavery and genocide parts in the lore. They're unnecessary and don't foster inclusion around the tabletop. The setting loses none of its appeal by removing them.
Ultimately it's WotC's product, and for 5E so far they've declined to sell a Dark Sun product. If they change that decision and announce a Dark Sun setting for 5E I'll be interested, but I'll be less likely to get it if it keeps the slavery and genocide parts that are going to make my players not want to play in that sandbox.
Here is the reality: Settings are rules agnostic. They are collections of lore, not mechanics, and you can transplant lore into whatever system you choose. Then it is a simple matter of making sure you limit the mechanics of your chosen system (or add to them, such as by using the5e playtest content for Mystic, a psionic class built for a potential 5e Dark Sun revival). If you want to play Dark Sun in 5e, no one is stopping you.
Granted, why anyone would want to play Dark Sun is beyond me - the entire setting is basically what an edgelord teenager would create if they wanted to jam as many edgy cliches into a single setting. But, to each their own, I suppose.
Now, should Wizards bring it back officially? I think it would be nice to have an official world that is a bit darker and more dangerous than other official worlds. But I do not think it should be Dark Sun. If they update the plane to remove the unnecessarily edgy elements, they’ll alienate the existing fans of the game (though, in my personal experience, most Dark Sun fans are the same kind of players that make the rest of us in the hobby look bad). If they keep the original level of teenager edge, they will release a product that makes them look bad and undoes their efforts to distance themselves from the game’s bigoted past.
No real winning with a true Dark Sun revival; they’d be better off making a new world with a similar feel.. or just partnering with the many third-parties who have grimdark worlds (which is what Wizards seems to be doing already).
My point was that they could add a variant that was easier to manage at the table than tracking pounds. Or more dynamic, such as one tied to dice. Something more fun that serves as a minigame and less just marking boxes.
Or, really, Dark Sun could just be the setting where that stuff matters. Where they use the rules that are in the book.
If they were doing the setting there'd be more incentive for a robust psionic system. Although, there are the 3 subclasses AND the feats. And it wouldn't be hard to add more origin feats.
Just like with Theros where characters just started with an extra feat because they were practically gods. In Dark Sun you could pick from a list of feats that include numerous psionic options. Then they just need to add a psionicist wizard and they're golden.
Gross and toxic by Western society that has kinda, sorta decided that slavery is bad. And that genocide is bad. And forced breeding programs are bad.
While it's wholly possible to not run a module or setting if you don't like it's contents or themes, Wizards of the Coast releases a finite number of books each year. So releasing a problematic book rather than non-problematic book means releasing material that a lot of their audience will be turned off by.
This is an issue for a couple reasons.
Firstly, it creates negative press. The conversation becomes about how WotC is releasing controversial books or slavery simulator settings. Even if the arguments are dubious (as the sorcerer-kings and templars are the antagonists) it creates negative buzz.
Second, WotC is a business. Their goal is to produce books that the largest percentage of their audience will buy. They don't make books for small niche groups. A book full of problematic content with content that can't easily be used in other games that employs gameplay many groups don't use might not be a huge seller.
WotC choosing not to prioritize 1st-party products in a given setting is not "abolishing" that setting. DM's Guild exists if you want to publish (or fund the publication of) Dark Sun product that badly, and there's always homebrew for your personal table.
I was a child when I started to read "Endless Quest" gamebooks, and in the second book "The mountain of the mirrors" there was slavery.
WotC wants to sell sourcebooks more focused into the crunch, because the players don't want to spend money into expensive books about the lore when this is read once.
An update of the crunch part is possible, but my opinion is WotC would rather to start from zero with a spiritual sucessor not only for more creative freedom but also because players are more willing to pay for a unknown lore that hasn't be published yet in the fandom wiki web.
Other option is to create a mixed setting, merging two previous ones, for example Dragonlance and DS. Let's imagine after the reboot of D&D multiverse by Vecna (when he caused all those troubles in Sigil) some widlspaces or alternate timelines were altered, and then the chronomancers and the time dragons tried to save their lairs... and not all worked totally well. Also because "Chaos" found some time of "planar backdoor" toward the Athasian tablelands. Here the adventage is players can't safe what are going to face. Maybe a famous sorcerer-king now is a chromatic dragon, or an infernal half-dragon. WotC only had to write some pages and publish some pictures, like an article from Dragon Magazine, unlocking in DM Guild, and allowing the fandom to tell their own fanfic ideas.
Other idea is Athas is a demiplane created in the Green Age. The Brown Tide couldn't be stopped, and then the only option was to create a demiplane. Then we have got two Athas, the one we know and the original destroyed by the Brown Tide. And some external power offered some deal to Rajaat. Then this traveled to the past and agreed a truce with the champions. These would be the rulers of the demiplane, but the original Athas should be cleaned to return to the blue age.
And my last suggestion is a module or adventure where PCs from other setting can visit briefly the Athasian tablelands.
You actually can't; Dark Sun is not approved for DMs Guild (see https://help.dmsguild.com/hc/en-us/articles/12776909822615-Dungeons-Dragons-Content-Guidelines)
You’re missing the point of people calling it problematic: despite what some people have tried to claim there is no big conspiracy to cancel the presence of slavery, genocide, etc in fiction full-stop. However, WotC/Hasbro’s longstanding business models for the content they’re going to produce aren’t compatible with settings where those elements are normalized even in the “this is how you can tell it’s a dystopia” sense, ergo the fact that those elements are significant cornerstones of the setting would present problems with going forward.
Even if Dark Sun itself never came back due to the problematic elements, I'd still want an official post apocalyptic gritty survival based setting to fill that void.
“Gritty survival” is a little hard to run on core 5e when a 1st level spell checks off two of the big survival pillars and a 3rd level ritual can check off another. Obviously they could theoretically write up a bunch of overhaul/alt rules to be used with the setting, but the past 10 years have shown a distinct lack of 1st party content that proposes such sweeping changes to the core dynamics. There’s the DMG sections, but that’s about it. Given that, I think a hard survival bent setting with supporting rules isn’t in the cards. Now, I could definitely see them doing a fantastic desert type setting with a “hard lands make for hard people” theme and thoroughly grey on gray factions, but I don’t think they’ll write a setting book specifically designed to produce an environment where PCs have to struggle for daily necessities.
It's clearly not a single individual or small group of "posters" that see these problems though, otherwise Kyle Brink would not have made the statement he did. His concern wasn't conjured out of thin air, it's reflective of the company's official perspective on the issue. And the speed with which he answered Bob's question indicates these are active conversations they've been having - it's not like he went "Dark Sun, what's that?" or had to wrack his brain for an answer etc.
Point, but that still leaves two options:
1) Personal homebrew for DS enthusiasts to run at their own tables.
2) Ravenloft IS on the list, so just set a campaign in Hazlan, which is pretty much Athas in all but name, and file the serial numbers off. You can include a wink-nudge sidebar that says "This campaign is suitable for other post-magopocalyptic desert settings ruled by powerful evil spellcasters where resources are scarce and magic-use is frowned on, hint-hint-hint."
Well, it's not that hard to provide a list of modified or unavailable spells -- offhand, the 'modify or remove' list comes down to
which isn't an any bigger than the list of spells modified in Ravenloft.
Point, though the circumstances are somewhat different. If I’m looking at the right section, what’s affected in Ravenloft is planar travel spells, which is a segment of the game more heavily run by the DM in any case, rather than spells designed for more day-to-day utility. It’s not like Cure Wounds or Protection from Evil and Good are blocked or mechanically altered.
Another option would be something like faerzress from Out of the Abyss - something that provides a potential detriment to magic use. Adjusting the risk factor on such an effect (or doing something like making the risk increase with each spell cast) could really skew the math on whether that Goodberry is worthwhile.
Plenty of ways to use existing mechanisms to produce a more gritty survival-style game—if that is what you and your players want.
For folks wanting a D&D based post magical apocalypse setting you could checkout Broken Weave by Cubicle 7.
What's your point? That because one game includes it, all games have to include it?
Just because something happens in the real world, doesn't mean people want it in their escapist fantasy. Pedophilia is far too common in the real world but I don't think it has a place in D&D.
For YOU it's "politics." For other people it's a painful memory of their family's tragedy. It's who they are. And they might not like it being milked for the entertainment value of others. (And the financial gain of WotC.)
And spoiler: adding it would be just as political. Just because it's the default for you doesn't mean it's not political for someone else.
Many people feel Civilization glorifies colonialism and presents a solely western view of what constitutes "progress." That's a longstanding complaint. Not a great example.
[REDACTED]
* In 5e magic can help a lot to survive, but we don't need to ban those powers.
For example the living constructs PC species usually don't need food or water but in DS there is a "plague" by an elemental fungus, and then the living construct PCs (for example shardminds) need water and special herbs to stop or heal the elemental infection.
The druid can create food and water to save the group, but... if this goes to the city the templars can sense when somebody is a divine or primal spellcaster (really when somebody has casted a divine or primal spell in the last 24 hours). Some wild Athasian predators also can sense it, and this means if you use too much you could attract the attetion of hunter monsters, or worse. There are "urban legends" about dark feys who sense divine and primal spellcasters and then these are abducted toward their realms in the "land within the wind".
Other point is the life-shaping craft. Maybe you don't need magic when there are some biopunk artifact to purify water.
* One of the most important elements of the metaplot are the characters, heroes and villains. Without these the IP has got less brand power. I guess these could be recycled in a new continuity, something like the different remakes of that cartoon show.
* Some retcons could be necessary everyway, for example written languange is allowed, at least to publish warning posters about some new law, but certain alphabet is "forbidden" and only a little group is allowed to use it. And slaves can't be owned by individuals but only by the "state". Then wicked players aren't allowed to buy slaves to create a harem. (What is doing here that halfling, pervert?!).
* Could Rajaat to be chosen by the Dark Powers to become a new dark lord? The domain would be Athas in the blue age, but fighting against some remains of the brown tide, and the no-halflings aren't wellcome but these are reappearing from halfings suffering mutations time after time.
* What if there is a new transitional setting about chronomancers and an alternate Athaspace was one of the batlefields among different time-traveler factions?
Problem with keying it to magic use in general is that anything potent enough to make those spells not just 'remove survival as an issue' will probably make spellcasters unplayable, because if two first level spells per day (one casting of create water, one casting of goodberry) is too dangerous... so is pretty much anything else you'd do as a spellcaster. Better to hit the specific problem spells (this is not to say you can't also attach other risks to magic, they just have to scaled in a manageable way).
It would be one solution, but it would also be a notable departure from their past models. Like I said, so far the extent of their vetoing spells/spell effects on a setting basis is just planar travel stuff, which is not only something the DM has a lot of scope over, but also one that's commonly accepted as something that can be blocked by a given area as what amount to an environmental feature. Cherry-picking low-level utility spells is a different proposition. Not inherently bad, just not something they've chosen to pursue so far. Honestly, if I did want to cut back on it, easiest way is to just implement the grim and gritty rest rules so producing food is a real investment of resources- particularly when it takes 7 times longer for the slot to come back than the food will last. Leaves the Hut, but frankly night ambushes are more tedious than anything in play imo and the game doesn't have sufficient crunch or skill granularity to make "work out how you have shelter for the night" an engaging proposition on anything like a regular basis.