Dark Sun: an interesting and polemic setting

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

I think we can reasonably expect that Wizards will use origin feats to represent a player’s psionic talents.  That is the best way to represent innate abilities under the current character creation structure.  Moreover, by making them origin feats, that makes the product more useful for homebrew worlds - many of us will never play Dark Sun, but having psionic origin feats is something any table using psionics benefits from.  If I were Wizards, I would probably include a disclaimer in the book that it is heavily encouraged a player chooses one of the psionic feats (over something like tough) if playing a Dark Sun game.  

I also expect the monsters included in the book will all have some kind of psionic ability.  That is one of the things I think they could do really well, particularly if they offer a wide range of abilities showing various levels of skill in Psionics.

I also would hope they have a table of psionic abilities that you can staple onto MM monsters to get that Athas feel.  But I doubt this will happen.  I expect they will just rely on DMs using the (mediocre)  “create a monster” rules from the DMG, which basically boil down to “take the monster you like, find a similar CR monster with the ability you want, staple them together.”  Which.. works and does the job for taking monsters from the DS setting books and taping their abilities to MM monsters, but is far more annoying than simply having a table.

 It seems I'm not communicating well.

Yes, I do expect (and welcome!) the use of Wild Talent origin feats in Athas to represent baseline/widespread psionic ability. What I don't want is for the Wild Talents to supplant any other origin feats for the character. If I'm forced into a Wild Talent at level 1 and receive no bonus feat to compensate, then in an Athas campaign I'm basically cut off from Lucky, or Alert, or Magic Initiate, or Skilled or Tough etc etc (unless I play Human) as well as other backgrounds like the Pact feats. In other words, I don't want to have to choose a Wild Talent over something like Tough in a Dark Sun campaign, I want to get both.

What I'm hoping for is something like Dragonlance SotDQ, where it was described in the chargen section as a harsher world at war, and thus the PCs received extra feats to compensate. And I'm further hoping that the DM will get guidance on adding psionic abilities to monsters that would be non-psionic in other settings. That's all.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Quote from RecordiconKnok >>

 In case you didn't know, Wild Talent feats were playtested in the Psion's first UA, and they work almost exactly like the way you suggested (they're feats made to be available as early as level 1, and consist of a thematic ability and some combination of 1 cantrip, 1 level 1 spell, and 1 level 2 spell). I'm fairly confident they're going to appear in Dark Sun: Blood and Power.

 I am aware of those; the thing I meant was currently missing are rules for every (or almost every) PC and NPC on Athas to have one - and for PCs, without giving up their Origin feat. I expect for the Athas PCs it'll be as easy as a bonus WT feat (hopefully with the option to swap it for Tough or Skilled for those rare folks who want to try being a psionic muggle on Athas), but for monsters not in the book the DM will likely want at least a bit of guidance.

 

I'd assume they would be giving up their Origin feats, the same way Eberron PCs are giving them up to have Dragonmarks.

 But the majority of Eberron inhabitants don't have those. Whereas nearly everything on Athas is psionic. It's not the same thing.

 

I think we can reasonably expect that Wizards will use origin feats to represent a player’s psionic talents.  That is the best way to represent innate abilities under the current character creation structure.  Moreover, by making them origin feats, that makes the product more useful for homebrew worlds - many of us will never play Dark Sun, but having psionic origin feats is something any table using psionics benefits from.  If I were Wizards, I would probably include a disclaimer in the book that it is heavily encouraged a player chooses one of the psionic feats (over something like tough) if playing a Dark Sun game.  

I also expect the monsters included in the book will all have some kind of psionic ability.  That is one of the things I think they could do really well, particularly if they offer a wide range of abilities showing various levels of skill in Psionics.

I also would hope they have a table of psionic abilities that you can staple onto MM monsters to get that Athas feel.  But I doubt this will happen.  I expect they will just rely on DMs using the (mediocre)  “create a monster” rules from the DMG, which basically boil down to “take the monster you like, find a similar CR monster with the ability you want, staple them together.”  Which.. works and does the job for taking monsters from the DS setting books and taping their abilities to MM monsters, but is far more annoying than simply having a table.

 I do want to note that the 5.5e DMG's Creature Traits list (which is part of the monster creation rules you mentioned and consists of traits you can staple to existing monsters) includes this trait:

"Wild Talent. Choose one cantrip; the creature can cast that cantrip without spell components, using Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as the spellcasting ability."

Quote from RecordiconKnok >>

 I do want to note that the 5.5e DMG's Creature Traits list (which is part of the monster creation rules you mentioned and consists of traits you can staple to existing monsters) includes this trait:

"Wild Talent. Choose one cantrip; the creature can cast that cantrip without spell components, using Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma as the spellcasting ability."

 I actually forgot that rule! So that's one of my two concerns sorted.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

I think we can reasonably expect that Wizards will use origin feats to represent a player’s psionic talents.  That is the best way to represent innate abilities under the current character creation structure.  Moreover, by making them origin feats, that makes the product more useful for homebrew worlds - many of us will never play Dark Sun, but having psionic origin feats is something any table using psionics benefits from.  If I were Wizards, I would probably include a disclaimer in the book that it is heavily encouraged a player chooses one of the psionic feats (over something like tough) if playing a Dark Sun game.  

I also expect the monsters included in the book will all have some kind of psionic ability.  That is one of the things I think they could do really well, particularly if they offer a wide range of abilities showing various levels of skill in Psionics.

I also would hope they have a table of psionic abilities that you can staple onto MM monsters to get that Athas feel.  But I doubt this will happen.  I expect they will just rely on DMs using the (mediocre)  “create a monster” rules from the DMG, which basically boil down to “take the monster you like, find a similar CR monster with the ability you want, staple them together.”  Which.. works and does the job for taking monsters from the DS setting books and taping their abilities to MM monsters, but is far more annoying than simply having a table.

 It seems I'm not communicating well.

Yes, I do expect (and welcome!) the use of Wild Talent origin feats in Athas to represent baseline/widespread psionic ability. What I don't want is for the Wild Talents to supplant any other origin feats for the character. If I'm forced into a Wild Talent at level 1 and receive no bonus feat to compensate, then in an Athas campaign I'm basically cut off from Lucky, or Alert, or Magic Initiate, or Skilled or Tough etc etc (unless I play Human) as well as other backgrounds like the Pact feats. In other words, I don't want to have to choose a Wild Talent over something like Tough in a Dark Sun campaign, I want to get both.

What I'm hoping for is something like Dragonlance SotDQ, where it was described in the chargen section as a harsher world at war, and thus the PCs received extra feats to compensate. And I'm further hoping that the DM will get guidance on adding psionic abilities to monsters that would be non-psionic in other settings. That's all.

 
Those “extra feats” were a field test of the background/origin feat system, iirc. At the end of the day, I expect you’re gonna have to give to get for this- I didn’t look closely at the feats in the UA, so maybe they’ll be tuned up relative to Origin feats similarly to Dragonmarks, but I doubt they’ll straight up call for double-dipping feats at character creation.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >> 

Those “extra feats” were a field test of the background/origin feat system, iirc.  

One of them was. The other was just an extra feat over your regular allocation to represent the harshness of the world.

We'll have to wait and see, but I still hope getting a Wild Talent doesn't come at the (opportunity) cost of any other origin feat you could have received.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

I think we can reasonably expect that Wizards will use origin feats to represent a player’s psionic talents.  That is the best way to represent innate abilities under the current character creation structure.  Moreover, by making them origin feats, that makes the product more useful for homebrew worlds - many of us will never play Dark Sun, but having psionic origin feats is something any table using psionics benefits from.  If I were Wizards, I would probably include a disclaimer in the book that it is heavily encouraged a player chooses one of the psionic feats (over something like tough) if playing a Dark Sun game.  

I also expect the monsters included in the book will all have some kind of psionic ability.  That is one of the things I think they could do really well, particularly if they offer a wide range of abilities showing various levels of skill in Psionics.

I also would hope they have a table of psionic abilities that you can staple onto MM monsters to get that Athas feel.  But I doubt this will happen.  I expect they will just rely on DMs using the (mediocre)  “create a monster” rules from the DMG, which basically boil down to “take the monster you like, find a similar CR monster with the ability you want, staple them together.”  Which.. works and does the job for taking monsters from the DS setting books and taping their abilities to MM monsters, but is far more annoying than simply having a table.

 It seems I'm not communicating well.

Yes, I do expect (and welcome!) the use of Wild Talent origin feats in Athas to represent baseline/widespread psionic ability. What I don't want is for the Wild Talents to supplant any other origin feats for the character. If I'm forced into a Wild Talent at level 1 and receive no bonus feat to compensate, then in an Athas campaign I'm basically cut off from Lucky, or Alert, or Magic Initiate, or Skilled or Tough etc etc (unless I play Human) as well as other backgrounds like the Pact feats. In other words, I don't want to have to choose a Wild Talent over something like Tough in a Dark Sun campaign, I want to get both.

What I'm hoping for is something like Dragonlance SotDQ, where it was described in the chargen section as a harsher world at war, and thus the PCs received extra feats to compensate. And I'm further hoping that the DM will get guidance on adding psionic abilities to monsters that would be non-psionic in other settings. That's all.

 
Those “extra feats” were a field test of the background/origin feat system, iirc. At the end of the day, I expect you’re gonna have to give to get for this- I didn’t look closely at the feats in the UA, so maybe they’ll be tuned up relative to Origin feats similarly to Dragonmarks, but I doubt they’ll straight up call for double-dipping feats at character creation.

 
Hardly. Dark Sun had many rules alterations in 2nd edition, but that was the TSR way of doing this, WTOC usually prefer to keep the rules aligned (as was in 4th edition), especially given the current premise that D&D is a "multiverse." The idea that everyone has psionic abilities will most likely be retconned.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

What I'm hoping for is something like Dragonlance SotDQ, where it was described in the chargen section as a harsher world at war, and thus the PCs received extra feats to compensate. And I'm further hoping that the DM will get guidance on adding psionic abilities to monsters that would be non-psionic in other settings. That's all.

 I’d expect them to do something like this. Really, it doesn’t even have to be a feat. Just something like, People in Athas all have some level of psionic ability, choose one from the following list: mage hand, mind sliver, etc. just give them a cantrip, no feat or background necessary. 
And if they want to keep it going, at level 5, they get to choose another power from a list of level 1 spells.

And they can still have wild talent feats for people who want to really lean into it without going full psionicist.

Quote from SaintLothar >> 

Hardly. Dark Sun had many rules alterations in 2nd edition, but that was the TSR way of doing this, WTOC usually prefer to keep the rules aligned (as was in 4th edition), especially given the current premise that D&D is a "multiverse." The idea that everyone has psionic abilities will most likely be retconned.

 That's a solution too, albeit one I would be a bit less enthused about.

Quote from Xalthu >>

 I’d expect them to do something like this. Really, it doesn’t even have to be a feat. Just something like, People in Athas all have some level of psionic ability, choose one from the following list: mage hand, mind sliver, etc. just give them a cantrip, no feat or background necessary. 
And if they want to keep it going, at level 5, they get to choose another power from a list of level 1 spells.

And they can still have wild talent feats for people who want to really lean into it without going full psionicist.

 You're right of course that they can do this without the Wild Talent system entirely, but tying it to something like a bonus feat will make it pop on the sheet I wager.

How it plays on a sheet is a relevant point here, now that you mention it. Slotting it into the background/origin feat slot makes it play nicely with the character sheet system as we currently know it- the option is selected at creation using a pre-existing box and everything populates from there. Having players pencil it in makes it a lot less intuitive for the Beyond sheets unless their retooling sets up some slot specifically for setting-specific secondary features, which then presents another can of worms for all the campaigns that aren't using them since you would ideally want some way to filter that option by campaigns then.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

How it plays on a sheet is a relevant point here, now that you mention it. Slotting it into the background/origin feat slot makes it play nicely with the character sheet system as we currently know it- the option is selected at creation using a pre-existing box and everything populates from there. Having players pencil it in makes it a lot less intuitive for the Beyond sheets unless their retooling sets up some slot specifically for setting-specific secondary features, which then presents another can of worms for all the campaigns that aren't using them since you would ideally want some way to filter that option by campaigns then.

 But the site rebuild will fix all of that 🙂 And it will make our teeth whiter and we’ll lose 10 pounds.

Seriously, I do get the vibe that the rebuild might allow this kind of thing. But that’s possibly my own Rorschach test of what they’ve said.

Quote from Xalthu >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

How it plays on a sheet is a relevant point here, now that you mention it. Slotting it into the background/origin feat slot makes it play nicely with the character sheet system as we currently know it- the option is selected at creation using a pre-existing box and everything populates from there. Having players pencil it in makes it a lot less intuitive for the Beyond sheets unless their retooling sets up some slot specifically for setting-specific secondary features, which then presents another can of worms for all the campaigns that aren't using them since you would ideally want some way to filter that option by campaigns then.

 But the site rebuild will fix all of that 🙂 And it will make our teeth whiter and we’ll lose 10 pounds.

Seriously, I do get the vibe that the rebuild might allow this kind of thing. But that’s possibly my own Rorschach test of what they’ve said.

I won't rule it out, but I'm skeptical they'll invest all the extra time to make a second optional slot that's controllable by the DM/campaign work when they can just use an already functional arrangement, particularly given that it's how they tackled this kind of concept in the past- Dragonmarks, Ravnica backgrounds, etc.

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

Supporting this, one of my old table-mates said, "I want fantasy not prophecy." when i told him DarkSun was returning. 
It is a setting that feels a little too real to some people. A reminder of the dark future they see rushing toward them.
It is a hard sell to some, but there is enough post apocalypse enjoyers that show that there is a hunger for it. It is just, not everyone.

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

 I do personally have reservations about the kind of personality types and ideals a setting like this might attract given the current state of the world. I might run some Obojima as a salve

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

 I do personally have reservations about the kind of personality types and ideals a setting like this might attract given the current state of the world. I might run some Obojima as a salve

This was my (brief) experience with OG Dark Sun. The worst people in the community feeling like they'd been given license to really let loose, because "that's just the way this world is"

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

 I do personally have reservations about the kind of personality types and ideals a setting like this might attract given the current state of the world. I might run some Obojima as a salve

 

This was my (brief) experience with OG Dark Sun. The worst people in the community feeling like they'd been given license to really let loose, because "that's just the way this world is"

 
As an enjoyer of DarkSun, and there for the OG, yeah, Anton is right. It did kinda bring out the worst in awful people. They were awful people anyway, so it isn't like the setting made them that way, but it did facilitate it.

But just because some people were awful, that doesn't mean we should abandon the setting. I also remember someone else who went through 15PCs and most of them died freeing slaves or defending the helpless. (it wasn't me, I only ever had 3 Darksun PCs.) 

There is also the benefit that if it becomes the murderhobo setting then it will draw most of such people out of other settings, and then we can enjoy our Forgotten realms, Greyhawk and Ravnica while the chuds are contained in Arthas. I do now realize that one of my favorite settings for radical hope-punk campaigns is likely going to be flypaper for chuds, but hey I am a 40K fan so what else is new?

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

 I do personally have reservations about the kind of personality types and ideals a setting like this might attract given the current state of the world. I might run some Obojima as a salve

 

This was my (brief) experience with OG Dark Sun. The worst people in the community feeling like they'd been given license to really let loose, because "that's just the way this world is"

 
As an enjoyer of DarkSun, and there for the OG, yeah, Anton is right. It did kinda bring out the worst in awful people. They were awful people anyway, so it isn't like the setting made them that way, but it did facilitate it.

But just because some people were awful, that doesn't mean we should abandon the setting. I also remember someone else who went through 15PCs and most of them died freeing slaves or defending the helpless. (it wasn't me, I only ever had 3 Darksun PCs.) 

There is also the benefit that if it becomes the murderhobo setting then it will draw most of such people out of other settings, and then we can enjoy our Forgotten realms, Greyhawk and Ravnica while the chuds are contained in Arthas. I do now realize that one of my favorite settings for radical hope-punk campaigns is likely going to be flypaper for chuds, but hey I am a 40K fan so what else is new?

 It's the setting-wide version of "it's what my character would do."

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from GnollitAll78450 >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Tarod_ >>

Dark Sun was the third campaign setting we played in the AD&D 2e era. The problem now, in my case, is that it's going to be difficult to find players in my area to play in that devastated world with the peculiarities already mentioned.

 I do personally have reservations about the kind of personality types and ideals a setting like this might attract given the current state of the world. I might run some Obojima as a salve

 

This was my (brief) experience with OG Dark Sun. The worst people in the community feeling like they'd been given license to really let loose, because "that's just the way this world is"

 
As an enjoyer of DarkSun, and there for the OG, yeah, Anton is right. It did kinda bring out the worst in awful people. They were awful people anyway, so it isn't like the setting made them that way, but it did facilitate it.

But just because some people were awful, that doesn't mean we should abandon the setting. I also remember someone else who went through 15PCs and most of them died freeing slaves or defending the helpless. (it wasn't me, I only ever had 3 Darksun PCs.) 

There is also the benefit that if it becomes the murderhobo setting then it will draw most of such people out of other settings, and then we can enjoy our Forgotten realms, Greyhawk and Ravnica while the chuds are contained in Arthas. I do now realize that one of my favorite settings for radical hope-punk campaigns is likely going to be flypaper for chuds, but hey I am a 40K fan so what else is new?

 It's the setting-wide version of "it's what my character would do."

 Wouldn’t be surprised if it was the origin of the “murder hobo” stereotype

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I'm tentatively hopeful WotC can excise the worst of the edgy, toxic elements while still retaining what makes Dark Sun unique and challenging as a setting. Jennifer Kretchmer shared a brief thread of her thoughts on Dark Sun this past weekend, and I find I share her optimism for the setting overall and for this 5.5E release. She wholeheartedly agreed there are valid concerns about Dark Sun and its legacy, its harmful elements, and about how folks who want to could absolutely use the setting to tell harmful stories when the 5.5E version is released. But she also recognized the themes of Dark Sun are incredibly relevant right now: environmentalism, overthrowing tyrants, finding community when the powers that be want to stoke fear, hatred, and division, difficult choices around power and how or if it's even possible to use it to protect communities, and the apocalyptic power of greed. She also identified a key theme is that victory isn't about winning an impossible fight today, but sowing the seeds of hope and moving the needle just the tiniest bit so the struggle tomorrow seems less bleak and impossible. She also wisely noted that not every story needs to be for everybody, and it's okay to take a big swing on making mature content for mature audiences.

 

I totally agree with you. I think they can create that "balance". I honestly hope they could, because the world looks stunning and it has a lot of interesting topics that could create amazing camaigns if developed correctly.

Do you have the link of that interview? If I may ask.

Thanks for your answer. 😊

 For my part, I'm glad that Dan Ayoub is at the helm on this one.  He appears to appreciate what the setting actually was for those of us who played it when it first emerged, and isn't letting the sensitivities of those who aren't the target audience dilute what made it great.

D&D is a wonderful brand that has so much to offer.  If Dark Sun isn't your yum, please don't yuck it for the rest of us.

I wouldn't color people's valid concerns around problematic topics "sensitivities" or pull a No True Scotsman by saying people who have those valid concerns aren't the target audience. Dark Sun can be a great setting that handles complicated topics in a mature way without embracing the toxic edgelord lowest common denominator.