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.
Luckily, WotC isn't 1990s TSR. At worst you'll be asked to take it down, but chances are no one will say anything about it given the fan policy, that you're not making money from it, and WotC is not actually doing anything with the setting right now.
Now I am thinking the region of Tyr is too small as sandbox for the current standars.
The parts we need are:
The crunch: psionic powers, magic item, special rules (for example about defiler magic), subclasses, PC species...
The monsters
The sorcerer-kings: the characters from DS with more brand power.
----
WotC could publish "Shattered Lands", a generic sourcebook about post-apocaliptic settings, with a chapter about Athas, only some pages about the city-states of the region of Tyr and the stats of the sorcerer-kings.
* OK, the elans with the trait "repletion" don't need water or food for 24 hours if they spend only one power point. But this doesn't need to be nerferd in the classic way. There is other option. When this trait is used then the elan earns a "special smell" and they can be "easily" detected by Athasian predators. It would be as if I could smell the beer you have drunk five minutes ago.
* Other idea is the sorcerer-kings discovered their "timeline" was to be "rewritten" because a confrotation between factions of chronomancers and the city-states were sent to a demiplane, and later this demiplane "traveled" toward the post-apocaliptic Krynnspace where Raistlin is the one deity, or he was between the gray gem was broken and Chaos was free again.
* What about the queen Trinth, Galanaki and Yathazor from the module "the black spine"? Maybe this faction created an empire within the Athaspace around the region of Tyr, and this could be the point of origin of "new" PC species: dromites, elans, maenads, xephs, shardminds, synads, kalashtars, gem dragonborns, fraals..
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.
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.
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.
And now you know...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
“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.
Luckily, WotC isn't 1990s TSR. At worst you'll be asked to take it down, but chances are no one will say anything about it given the fan policy, that you're not making money from it, and WotC is not actually doing anything with the setting right now.
Now I am thinking the region of Tyr is too small as sandbox for the current standars.
The parts we need are:
The crunch: psionic powers, magic item, special rules (for example about defiler magic), subclasses, PC species...
The monsters
The sorcerer-kings: the characters from DS with more brand power.
----
WotC could publish "Shattered Lands", a generic sourcebook about post-apocaliptic settings, with a chapter about Athas, only some pages about the city-states of the region of Tyr and the stats of the sorcerer-kings.
* OK, the elans with the trait "repletion" don't need water or food for 24 hours if they spend only one power point. But this doesn't need to be nerferd in the classic way. There is other option. When this trait is used then the elan earns a "special smell" and they can be "easily" detected by Athasian predators. It would be as if I could smell the beer you have drunk five minutes ago.
* Other idea is the sorcerer-kings discovered their "timeline" was to be "rewritten" because a confrotation between factions of chronomancers and the city-states were sent to a demiplane, and later this demiplane "traveled" toward the post-apocaliptic Krynnspace where Raistlin is the one deity, or he was between the gray gem was broken and Chaos was free again.
* What about the queen Trinth, Galanaki and Yathazor from the module "the black spine"? Maybe this faction created an empire within the Athaspace around the region of Tyr, and this could be the point of origin of "new" PC species: dromites, elans, maenads, xephs, shardminds, synads, kalashtars, gem dragonborns, fraals..
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.
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...