Fast forward 12, 18, maybe 24 months. The VTT is fully operational, and DM's are building sessions/campaigns with it. You answer a "Looking for Players" advert. Turns out, the DM is utilizing some theme you personally disagree with. Let's say the group has to stop some slavers. (there are classic D&D modules built on that). Or maybe a Gnoll warband slaughtered an entire town, and the group is tasked with hunting down that warband.
Do you:
A. Quietly excuse yourself from the group, stating it is not your cup of tea, wish the group well, and look for a game more your style.
B. Go to the moderators at d&D b, and complain that this DM is running a game on the d&D b platform, that you find offensive.
False equivalency. How I will react to a DM running a personal game is different from how I will react to a book published by a company. They're not just apples and oranges, but apples and softballs.
In the former case, I politely excuse myself from the game. In the latter case, I don't buy that book and question if I want to support that company in the future.
And, if my views are shared by a majority of players (or even a large minority of players) then that's a lot of people not buying the book. And people not buying their book is a good reason for a publisher—whose sole reason for existing is selling books—to not release said book.
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.
OK...so here is a scenario for you.
Fast forward 12, 18, maybe 24 months. The VTT is fully operational, and DM's are building sessions/campaigns with it. You answer a "Looking for Players" advert. Turns out, the DM is utilizing some theme you personally disagree with. Let's say the group has to stop some slavers. (there are classic D&D modules built on that). Or maybe a Gnoll warband slaughtered an entire town, and the group is tasked with hunting down that warband.
Do you:
A. Quietly excuse yourself from the group, stating it is not your cup of tea, wish the group well, and look for a game more your style.
B. Go to the moderators at d&D b, and complain that this DM is running a game on the d&D b platform, that you find offensive.
This is, fairly obviously, a false equivalency, equating what one does at their personal games with what Wizards should be publishing as official content. As should be pretty self-apparent, there is a big difference between a table’s game, which is tailored to players and folks have the option of walking away from, and official content, which holds the weight of official authority behind it as a tacit endorsement of the game’s contents.
There are plenty of reasons players like to explore such themes. I know I add complex themes like bigotry and slavery to my worlds because they make the world feel more alive, add some nuance to choices, and sometimes give my players something that makes them happy to crush or conflicted if they have to make a deal with the metaphysical devil. And, while I think it would be great for all DMs to approach such themes in a respectful manner that makes it clear the DM does not condone such themes themselves, one does not need to spend too long online to see there are clearly players who want these elements included because they can use these inclusions to fulfill their bigoted power fantasies.
That is why Wizards should not make this kind of content the default. It is easy to add something to a game if you want to add those themes. But, if you make the potentially dangerous themes a default, you’re giving the bigoted DMs the smokescreen of “I’m not a bigot, I’m just playing the game as Wizards intended.” As should be obvious to anyone (other than perhaps those who specifically want this smokescreen), giving that kind of ammunition to the community’s worst elements is not exactly healthy for the game.
Wading in here with no dog in this fight. Just curious since I've only ever played one DS session (not campaign... session) way back when I was young and honestly didn't even know any of the lore at the time. I mostly agree that what was presented above was strawman-ish, but I would like to push back on one thing: just because a setting comes out in an official capacity doesn't make it the "default". That will likely always be either Greyhawk or FR from here on out. A supplemental setting is just that, supplemental, optional, something to dive into if you are into what that particular setting provides; official or not.
I am genuinely interested in WotC policy on using such themes in official material because before last year I would have thought nothing beyond "PG13" themes would have been acceptable... and then BG3 happened (my thoughts on how sex is too demonized in the public mind aside). If, internally, the thought process was that DS is too problematic due to many of its themes, I wonder if that might be shifting.
It’s not a single universal policy, but they clearly want the core D&D game to be accessible to at least teens if not a little younger, ergo for their manuals and such they’re gonna want to keep that content T/PG-13 rather than M/R to help keep the kind of flags that lots of parents would watch for away from those products. That doesn’t mean they won’t make some other media- like BG3- aimed at more narrow segments, but I haven’t seen any signs they’re moving the needle on their flagship product itself.
Wading in here with no dog in this fight. Just curious since I've only ever played one DS session (not campaign... session) way back when I was young and honestly didn't even know any of the lore at the time. I mostly agree that what was presented above was strawman-ish, but I would like to push back on one thing: just because a setting comes out in an official capacity doesn't make it the "default". That will likely always be either Greyhawk or FR from here on out. A supplemental setting is just that, supplemental, optional, something to dive into if you are into what that particular setting provides; official or not.
I am genuinely interested in WotC policy on using such themes in official material because before last year I would have thought nothing beyond "PG13" themes would have been acceptable... and then BG3 happened (my thoughts on how sex is too demonized in the public mind aside). If, internally, the thought process was that DS is too problematic due to many of its themes, I wonder if that might be shifting.
How mature D&D should be is a good topic for debate. Especially as Baldur's Gate 3 is rated M for Mature.
As a middle-aged man who plays with other adults at a mixed-age table my table is fairly mature. There's a lot of generic sex jokes (which are, really, not particularly mature) yet queer friendly and sex positive. And there's themes of overcoming trauma and persecution and personal growth.
But... should WotC be publishing R-rated D&D?
The catch is, 40% of D&D players are under 24 and that number is increasing. The game is heavily popular in junior highs and high schools. And WotC is heavily focusing on this audience with the Young Adventurer's series, Dungeon Club graphic novels, and various Dungeon Academy books. Plus Funkos and plushies and other merch. They're really leaning into the game being a family brand. And R-rated content and mature subject matter in the adventure works against that.
I guess that's a fair assessment, but I do wonder now "narrow" that segment is that played BG3. Getting GotY probably brought a significant chunk of non-DnD players into the fold, if not the game proper.
It's also no longer the 80's and 90's. Parents, for better or for worse, are way more "helicoptery" and MUCH more likely to vet a product these days before allowing their kids access to it. At the same time, they also seem to be letting their kids access content that very few parents would have allowed back when I was growing up. I may be wrong, but I think something like DS, as long as it was advertised on the book itself as a "not for kids setting", steering would-be buyers to FR if they have problems with some of the themes in DS, would be able to coexist with the core product. And if not now, probably soon.
The above assessment of parents is my personal experience as a teacher and is probably influenced by where I live, as well. Kids these days have little opportunity around here to just go to a store after school and buy random stuff that their parents probably won't approve of...
I guess slavery can be added to a "family-friendly" franchise if in the end of each story at least some slave is freed and some slaver/slave trafficer is punished.
I can understand the possible fear by WotC some toxic fandom/players could cause some serious damage to the prestige of the brand. I am Spanish and here slavery ended before, then we haven't got the same thorns in the soul of our society. OK, there are injuries from the past, but my own grandparents suffered the Spanish civil war, and here we could forget the pain and start again. If these generations could forgive and bury the past, why can't you?
* Now I am thinking in an adventure there Vecna has created a demiplane imitating the region of Tyr, and ruled by clones of the sorcerer-kings, with the same memories and personalities (but if "retcons" were necessary). These believed to be the original ones. Rajaat is also the "lord" of a demiplane that imitates Athas in the blue age, but here he is a little like the selfish giant from Oscar Wilde's tale. The "torment" is an invasion of "cyborgs" sea creatures like the monsters from Junji Ito's "Gyo". Then Rajaat is forced to allow no-halflings in the zones that suffer the main attacks by these half-golem or contructouched monsters. The irony is the pieces from these monsters can be used to craft biopunk gadgets, for example crossbows with artificial muscles to reload itself.
* Or WotC could sell in D&D-Beyond some short titles, one about the region of Tyr and the city-states, and other about the sorcerer-kings. If it is digital, then the risk of possible controversy should be lower, and easy to edit if some potential sticking point had to be rewritten. We don't need to mention them.
WotC could publish a printed version "for all audiences" and in D&DBeyond sourcebook for only +18y subcribers. Of course the pictures would be totally SafeforWork, no-nude only.
* OK, WotC is allowed to use the ideas suggested by me, only you would need to say the source of inspiration was ideas told in this forum.
Should GIJoe vs Cobra be cancelled because terrorism causes a lot of suffering in the real life?
It's worth noting that the last G.I. Joe series ended after a single season in 2011. And the toys in that line being sold are mostly retro figures or expensive figures for collectors. AND the last TV show (G.I Joe: Renegades) presented Cobra as an evil corporation, Cobra Pharmaceuticals, recasting them from being a global terror organization).
So while not "cancelled" it does seem like people have decided international terrorism just isn't a good subject for a kids' cartoon.
Should GIJoe vs Cobra be cancelled because terrorism causes a lot of suffering in the real life?
It's worth noting that the last G.I. Joe series ended after a single season in 2011. And the toys in that line being sold are mostly retro figures or expensive figures for collectors. AND the last TV show (G.I Joe: Renegades) presented Cobra as an evil corporation, Cobra Pharmaceuticals, recasting them from being a global terror organization).
So while not "cancelled" it does seem like people have decided international terrorism just isn't a good subject for a kids' cartoon.
And now you know...
I mean, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Renegades was flipping the script a little with the Joes as the pursued party, so necessarily Cobra needed a background that gave it good publicity. It was still functionally a rogue power from the start, and queued up for its conventional role if the series had continued.
Should GIJoe vs Cobra be cancelled because terrorism causes a lot of suffering in the real life?
It's worth noting that the last G.I. Joe series ended after a single season in 2011. And the toys in that line being sold are mostly retro figures or expensive figures for collectors. AND the last TV show (G.I Joe: Renegades) presented Cobra as an evil corporation, Cobra Pharmaceuticals, recasting them from being a global terror organization).
So while not "cancelled" it does seem like people have decided international terrorism just isn't a good subject for a kids' cartoon.
And now you know...
I mean, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Renegades was flipping the script a little with the Joes as the pursued party, so necessarily Cobra needed a background that gave it good publicity. It was still functionally a rogue power from the start, and queued up for its conventional role if the series had continued.
And Cobra having one or more front companies that are seen as legitimate businesses with good reputations to the general public dates back to the original 80s stuff.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think you all are missing the fundamental reason GI Joe and Dark Sun are so obviously different properties.
With GI Joe, the message is clear - the default state of the world is good and heroes are trying to prevent subversion of that default by the bad guys. Even when the bad guys are at their strongest, they are a dangerous fringe that can be defeated. The overall vibe of GI Joe is one of aggressive optimism - the idea evil may be evil, but a plucky group of heroes can save the majority from being oppressed by this fringe group. Finally, there is a general feel of cartoonish villainry—they might be terrorists, but they’re terrorists led by a guy with a fishbowl on their head. No one in the real world really acts like Cobra.
Dark Sun is the exact opposite vibe. Evil is the monolithic default, so in control that the very idea of changing the status quo seems like a pipe dream. Elements such as slavery and bigotry are also engrained in the general population, that the very idea of heroes is a bit of a fringe concept. Further, far from being cartoonish, the villainy of Dark Sun is designed to be a stylized reflection of real world harm.
It is kind of ridiculous to try and compare the two. They are fundamentally different on every significant level - and those obvious differences are a significant reason why Cobra is likely to return but Dark Sun is not.
The post apparently got nuked but to answer the hypothetical anyway:
If I somehow came across someone hosting a game in WotC's VTT that contained content that violated WotC's ToS, yes, I would use a report function to bring that to their attention. Or if I came across such a campaign on a different platform, like StartPlaying, I would report it there. People who want to run games containing content that is against a platform-owners terms of service always have the option of offline play and local recruitment.
But the "Terms of Service" say nothing about suggestions said in the forum, for example ideas about a future module or the plot of a new novel. Technically it is not "user content", is it?
* Cobra from the cartoon shows was too ridiculous for the current standars. Real groups with less money could cause more destruction and suffering.
GIJoe is about good guys defendin the law&order and DS is about fighting against the tirany and fighting to recover the Nature damaged by the defiler magic.
And DS was too limited to the metaplot. After all the sorcerer-kings were defeated, the region of Tyr was too (relatively) small to be explored by epic-level PCs.
But the "Terms of Service" say nothing about suggestions said in the forum, for example ideas about a future module or the plot of a new novel. Technically it is not "user content", is it?
Yes, it's user content; the list in section 7.1 is examples, not exhaustive. And no, those rules aren't draconian, they're pretty normal. If you have ideas that you believe are of special value... don't publish them on any public forum.
Should GIJoe vs Cobra be cancelled because terrorism causes a lot of suffering in the real life?
It's worth noting that the last G.I. Joe series ended after a single season in 2011. And the toys in that line being sold are mostly retro figures or expensive figures for collectors. AND the last TV show (G.I Joe: Renegades) presented Cobra as an evil corporation, Cobra Pharmaceuticals, recasting them from being a global terror organization).
So while not "cancelled" it does seem like people have decided international terrorism just isn't a good subject for a kids' cartoon.
And now you know...
The last G.I. Joe film was released in 2021, and they are, as of April 2024, reportedly working on a new crossover with the Transformer franchise, they are still making movies for the franchise.
And all three G.I. Joe films have been financial disappointments that have been aimed more at nostalgic GenX and Millennials than kids with PG-13 live action films.
And since 2009 there have been 3 G.I. Joe films. Compare that with the six live-action Transformers films and one cartoon film in over that same duration. It's not really a relevant franchise anymore.
I am not going to earn everway with my crazy ideas about RPGs but if WotC borrows some idea by me, then at least I will can to let some legacy to be remembered by the future generations of players.
And we need clarity about the reason because something was allowed in the past but now it is a new taboo. Who has said this or that now is not allowed any more and why? We need to know if the choice was after a long and quiet reflection, or it was asked by an outer group.
The origin of the muls could be retconnected and the players could understand the reason. Should we worry?
Should we "cancel" stories in the media about school bulling or mobbing because there are people from the real life suffering it in these days?
If a threat causes somebody felt unconfortable then I could understand out of respect for the sensitivities of them, certain topics are not discussed any more. The part I don't understand is the reason for the changes of criteria when before in the past it could be told. Is it only a lower level of tolerance now?
OK, DS is not a family-friendly franchise, but...in Fortnite there are skins of characters from movies for mature audiences. If D&DB sold licenced virtual miniatures from movies for adults (action or horror), why not miniatures with a tribal/Hyrborian punk fashion style? Let's remember the number of little children playing toys of monsters from classic horror movies of the white&black age. Even once there were action figures of Aliens in the toy shops.
Why not to sell the sorcerer-kings of Athas in D&DB? Virtual miniatures with different poses and the monster stats together.
Or a "family-friendly" title about traders of the dunes, where the trader was something like a class for sidekicks, or like a background with levels, an evolution of the survivor classes from Van Ritchen's Guide 5e.
In 5e we have got evil humanoids doing really horrible things, for example the gnolls. The lore of the region of Tyr could be rewritten omitting that type of details. It could be still present, but we wouldn't say any word. The sorcerer-kings did horrible things during the cleasing wars, but also Darth Vader during the purge against the jedis and our children still can watch Star Wars cartoons.
Couldn't we talk about this like reasonable and civilized adults?
Once again, it’s not that the concept is being cancelled across all media, it’s that WotC is aiming for the “family-friendly heroic adventure story” vibe with their main products, and so “gritty dystopian wasteland where all kinds of awful social stuff is just the way things are” is simply not a compatible theme. And to address the most obvious “what about” point, Ravenloft is gothic horror where the point is to defeat and/or escape from the big villain who in turn is ultimately imprisoned for all eternity. The entire premise of the setting is that those bad guys are being constantly punished and are unable to get at new victims on any kind of meaningful scale, not that the whole world got so screwed up that the ruthless types are the ones who came out on top. Instances of visceral horror are one thing, since that’s often the kind of thing heroes are drawn into conflict against, but the existential horror of “all these bad things are the status quo of an entire setting” aren’t compatible with the themes WotC is clearly aiming for.
The cartoon "Pirates of the dark Waters" may be an example of how a franchise with a "Hirborean punk" artistic style can be "child-friendly". Thundarr the barbarian is cartoon show for children in a post-apocalypitic setting. "Cadillas and dinosaurs" also was a postapocaliptic cartoon.
I propose another solution: Time-travelers in Athas changed the past and now the seven state-cities of the region of Tyr are free and our loved Athasian heroes earned their happy end. But the sorcerer-kings haven't said their last word. They were chosen by a higher power and now they have reincarnated (maybe into some different specie) in a different wildspace that is going to suffer a cataclysm by divine punishment (and a future failing planar invasion from biopunk-version of Omega World). This new life is a poisonous gift, because they are the new (evil) lords but their thrones are a golden cage. This "new Athas" can get your favorite elements from the original edition, but also from later ones, for example more PC species, because this new Athas didn't suffer the cleasing war.
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.
Leaving out all those parts makes it not be Dark Sun anymore. All of those elements are what made the setting what it is. That's like saying you can have Ravenloft without Strahd. It makes no sense. I get it why they can't or won't bring Dark Sun back. It was actually one of my favorite settings when it came out back then because it was totally different from the "sword and sorcery, I want to be the hero who saves the day, midieval fantasy trope" that is prevalent in just about every RPG. But like I said, I know it won't come back because it's not a "politically correct" setting. And if they did try to bring it back without everything that made it Dark Sun, I'd rather they not do it at all.
All you need for Dark Sun is "it's D&D in a post-apocalyptic desert and nobody has swords or water." EIther it matures with us and loses the toxic edgelord stuff or it doesn't and it gets consigned to history.
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.
Leaving out all those parts makes it not be Dark Sun anymore. All of those elements are what made the setting what it is. That's like saying you can have Ravenloft without Strahd. It makes no sense. I get it why they can't or won't bring Dark Sun back. It was actually one of my favorite settings when it came out back then because it was totally different from the "sword and sorcery, I want to be the hero who saves the day, midieval fantasy trope" that is prevalent in just about every RPG. But like I said, I know it won't come back because it's not a "politically correct" setting. And if they did try to bring it back without everything that made it Dark Sun, I'd rather they not do it at all.
It’s not about being PC, it’s about keeping core D&D products in a general “family friendly” area. PC was the Hadozee errata, where you’ll note they did just retcon out the segment they didn’t want. With Dark Sun it’s about the basic genre of existential horror that is “bleak post-apocalyptic setting where every faction is dark grey at best and all kinds of major irl taboos are facts of life”, which cannot be reconciled with “family friendly” the way something like “gothic horror pocket dimension with an antagonist who can never truly be destroyed” can.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
False equivalency. How I will react to a DM running a personal game is different from how I will react to a book published by a company. They're not just apples and oranges, but apples and softballs.
In the former case, I politely excuse myself from the game. In the latter case, I don't buy that book and question if I want to support that company in the future.
And, if my views are shared by a majority of players (or even a large minority of players) then that's a lot of people not buying the book. And people not buying their book is a good reason for a publisher—whose sole reason for existing is selling books—to not release said book.
It’s not a single universal policy, but they clearly want the core D&D game to be accessible to at least teens if not a little younger, ergo for their manuals and such they’re gonna want to keep that content T/PG-13 rather than M/R to help keep the kind of flags that lots of parents would watch for away from those products. That doesn’t mean they won’t make some other media- like BG3- aimed at more narrow segments, but I haven’t seen any signs they’re moving the needle on their flagship product itself.
How mature D&D should be is a good topic for debate. Especially as Baldur's Gate 3 is rated M for Mature.
As a middle-aged man who plays with other adults at a mixed-age table my table is fairly mature. There's a lot of generic sex jokes (which are, really, not particularly mature) yet queer friendly and sex positive. And there's themes of overcoming trauma and persecution and personal growth.
But... should WotC be publishing R-rated D&D?
The catch is, 40% of D&D players are under 24 and that number is increasing. The game is heavily popular in junior highs and high schools. And WotC is heavily focusing on this audience with the Young Adventurer's series, Dungeon Club graphic novels, and various Dungeon Academy books. Plus Funkos and plushies and other merch. They're really leaning into the game being a family brand. And R-rated content and mature subject matter in the adventure works against that.
I guess that's a fair assessment, but I do wonder now "narrow" that segment is that played BG3. Getting GotY probably brought a significant chunk of non-DnD players into the fold, if not the game proper.
It's also no longer the 80's and 90's. Parents, for better or for worse, are way more "helicoptery" and MUCH more likely to vet a product these days before allowing their kids access to it. At the same time, they also seem to be letting their kids access content that very few parents would have allowed back when I was growing up. I may be wrong, but I think something like DS, as long as it was advertised on the book itself as a "not for kids setting", steering would-be buyers to FR if they have problems with some of the themes in DS, would be able to coexist with the core product. And if not now, probably soon.
The above assessment of parents is my personal experience as a teacher and is probably influenced by where I live, as well. Kids these days have little opportunity around here to just go to a store after school and buy random stuff that their parents probably won't approve of...
I guess slavery can be added to a "family-friendly" franchise if in the end of each story at least some slave is freed and some slaver/slave trafficer is punished.
I can understand the possible fear by WotC some toxic fandom/players could cause some serious damage to the prestige of the brand. I am Spanish and here slavery ended before, then we haven't got the same thorns in the soul of our society. OK, there are injuries from the past, but my own grandparents suffered the Spanish civil war, and here we could forget the pain and start again. If these generations could forgive and bury the past, why can't you?
* Now I am thinking in an adventure there Vecna has created a demiplane imitating the region of Tyr, and ruled by clones of the sorcerer-kings, with the same memories and personalities (but if "retcons" were necessary). These believed to be the original ones. Rajaat is also the "lord" of a demiplane that imitates Athas in the blue age, but here he is a little like the selfish giant from Oscar Wilde's tale. The "torment" is an invasion of "cyborgs" sea creatures like the monsters from Junji Ito's "Gyo". Then Rajaat is forced to allow no-halflings in the zones that suffer the main attacks by these half-golem or contructouched monsters. The irony is the pieces from these monsters can be used to craft biopunk gadgets, for example crossbows with artificial muscles to reload itself.
* Or WotC could sell in D&D-Beyond some short titles, one about the region of Tyr and the city-states, and other about the sorcerer-kings. If it is digital, then the risk of possible controversy should be lower, and easy to edit if some potential sticking point had to be rewritten. We don't need to mention them.
WotC could publish a printed version "for all audiences" and in D&DBeyond sourcebook for only +18y subcribers. Of course the pictures would be totally SafeforWork, no-nude only.
* OK, WotC is allowed to use the ideas suggested by me, only you would need to say the source of inspiration was ideas told in this forum.
It's worth noting that the last G.I. Joe series ended after a single season in 2011. And the toys in that line being sold are mostly retro figures or expensive figures for collectors. AND the last TV show (G.I Joe: Renegades) presented Cobra as an evil corporation, Cobra Pharmaceuticals, recasting them from being a global terror organization).
So while not "cancelled" it does seem like people have decided international terrorism just isn't a good subject for a kids' cartoon.
And now you know...
You might want to read the ToS, specifically section 7.4.
I mean, I wouldn’t read too much into that. Renegades was flipping the script a little with the Joes as the pursued party, so necessarily Cobra needed a background that gave it good publicity. It was still functionally a rogue power from the start, and queued up for its conventional role if the series had continued.
And Cobra having one or more front companies that are seen as legitimate businesses with good reputations to the general public dates back to the original 80s stuff.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I think you all are missing the fundamental reason GI Joe and Dark Sun are so obviously different properties.
With GI Joe, the message is clear - the default state of the world is good and heroes are trying to prevent subversion of that default by the bad guys. Even when the bad guys are at their strongest, they are a dangerous fringe that can be defeated. The overall vibe of GI Joe is one of aggressive optimism - the idea evil may be evil, but a plucky group of heroes can save the majority from being oppressed by this fringe group. Finally, there is a general feel of cartoonish villainry—they might be terrorists, but they’re terrorists led by a guy with a fishbowl on their head. No one in the real world really acts like Cobra.
Dark Sun is the exact opposite vibe. Evil is the monolithic default, so in control that the very idea of changing the status quo seems like a pipe dream. Elements such as slavery and bigotry are also engrained in the general population, that the very idea of heroes is a bit of a fringe concept. Further, far from being cartoonish, the villainy of Dark Sun is designed to be a stylized reflection of real world harm.
It is kind of ridiculous to try and compare the two. They are fundamentally different on every significant level - and those obvious differences are a significant reason why Cobra is likely to return but Dark Sun is not.
The post apparently got nuked but to answer the hypothetical anyway:
If I somehow came across someone hosting a game in WotC's VTT that contained content that violated WotC's ToS, yes, I would use a report function to bring that to their attention. Or if I came across such a campaign on a different platform, like StartPlaying, I would report it there. People who want to run games containing content that is against a platform-owners terms of service always have the option of offline play and local recruitment.
But the "Terms of Service" say nothing about suggestions said in the forum, for example ideas about a future module or the plot of a new novel. Technically it is not "user content", is it?
* Cobra from the cartoon shows was too ridiculous for the current standars. Real groups with less money could cause more destruction and suffering.
GIJoe is about good guys defendin the law&order and DS is about fighting against the tirany and fighting to recover the Nature damaged by the defiler magic.
And DS was too limited to the metaplot. After all the sorcerer-kings were defeated, the region of Tyr was too (relatively) small to be explored by epic-level PCs.
Yes, it's user content; the list in section 7.1 is examples, not exhaustive. And no, those rules aren't draconian, they're pretty normal. If you have ideas that you believe are of special value... don't publish them on any public forum.
And all three G.I. Joe films have been financial disappointments that have been aimed more at nostalgic GenX and Millennials than kids with PG-13 live action films.
And since 2009 there have been 3 G.I. Joe films. Compare that with the six live-action Transformers films and one cartoon film in over that same duration. It's not really a relevant franchise anymore.
But this might just be a little off topic...
I am not going to earn everway with my crazy ideas about RPGs but if WotC borrows some idea by me, then at least I will can to let some legacy to be remembered by the future generations of players.
And we need clarity about the reason because something was allowed in the past but now it is a new taboo. Who has said this or that now is not allowed any more and why? We need to know if the choice was after a long and quiet reflection, or it was asked by an outer group.
The origin of the muls could be retconnected and the players could understand the reason. Should we worry?
Should we "cancel" stories in the media about school bulling or mobbing because there are people from the real life suffering it in these days?
If a threat causes somebody felt unconfortable then I could understand out of respect for the sensitivities of them, certain topics are not discussed any more. The part I don't understand is the reason for the changes of criteria when before in the past it could be told. Is it only a lower level of tolerance now?
OK, DS is not a family-friendly franchise, but...in Fortnite there are skins of characters from movies for mature audiences. If D&DB sold licenced virtual miniatures from movies for adults (action or horror), why not miniatures with a tribal/Hyrborian punk fashion style? Let's remember the number of little children playing toys of monsters from classic horror movies of the white&black age. Even once there were action figures of Aliens in the toy shops.
Why not to sell the sorcerer-kings of Athas in D&DB? Virtual miniatures with different poses and the monster stats together.
Or a "family-friendly" title about traders of the dunes, where the trader was something like a class for sidekicks, or like a background with levels, an evolution of the survivor classes from Van Ritchen's Guide 5e.
In 5e we have got evil humanoids doing really horrible things, for example the gnolls. The lore of the region of Tyr could be rewritten omitting that type of details. It could be still present, but we wouldn't say any word. The sorcerer-kings did horrible things during the cleasing wars, but also Darth Vader during the purge against the jedis and our children still can watch Star Wars cartoons.
Couldn't we talk about this like reasonable and civilized adults?
Once again, it’s not that the concept is being cancelled across all media, it’s that WotC is aiming for the “family-friendly heroic adventure story” vibe with their main products, and so “gritty dystopian wasteland where all kinds of awful social stuff is just the way things are” is simply not a compatible theme. And to address the most obvious “what about” point, Ravenloft is gothic horror where the point is to defeat and/or escape from the big villain who in turn is ultimately imprisoned for all eternity. The entire premise of the setting is that those bad guys are being constantly punished and are unable to get at new victims on any kind of meaningful scale, not that the whole world got so screwed up that the ruthless types are the ones who came out on top. Instances of visceral horror are one thing, since that’s often the kind of thing heroes are drawn into conflict against, but the existential horror of “all these bad things are the status quo of an entire setting” aren’t compatible with the themes WotC is clearly aiming for.
The cartoon "Pirates of the dark Waters" may be an example of how a franchise with a "Hirborean punk" artistic style can be "child-friendly". Thundarr the barbarian is cartoon show for children in a post-apocalypitic setting. "Cadillas and dinosaurs" also was a postapocaliptic cartoon.
I propose another solution: Time-travelers in Athas changed the past and now the seven state-cities of the region of Tyr are free and our loved Athasian heroes earned their happy end. But the sorcerer-kings haven't said their last word. They were chosen by a higher power and now they have reincarnated (maybe into some different specie) in a different wildspace that is going to suffer a cataclysm by divine punishment (and a future failing planar invasion from biopunk-version of Omega World). This new life is a poisonous gift, because they are the new (evil) lords but their thrones are a golden cage. This "new Athas" can get your favorite elements from the original edition, but also from later ones, for example more PC species, because this new Athas didn't suffer the cleasing war.
Leaving out all those parts makes it not be Dark Sun anymore. All of those elements are what made the setting what it is. That's like saying you can have Ravenloft without Strahd. It makes no sense. I get it why they can't or won't bring Dark Sun back. It was actually one of my favorite settings when it came out back then because it was totally different from the "sword and sorcery, I want to be the hero who saves the day, midieval fantasy trope" that is prevalent in just about every RPG. But like I said, I know it won't come back because it's not a "politically correct" setting. And if they did try to bring it back without everything that made it Dark Sun, I'd rather they not do it at all.
All you need for Dark Sun is "it's D&D in a post-apocalyptic desert and nobody has swords or water." EIther it matures with us and loses the toxic edgelord stuff or it doesn't and it gets consigned to history.
It’s not about being PC, it’s about keeping core D&D products in a general “family friendly” area. PC was the Hadozee errata, where you’ll note they did just retcon out the segment they didn’t want. With Dark Sun it’s about the basic genre of existential horror that is “bleak post-apocalyptic setting where every faction is dark grey at best and all kinds of major irl taboos are facts of life”, which cannot be reconciled with “family friendly” the way something like “gothic horror pocket dimension with an antagonist who can never truly be destroyed” can.