Dark Sun: an interesting and polemic setting

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 Now it's entirely possible I may have missed one or two posts, but I don't recall a single person saying the theme should be banned or WotC should be prevented from publishing it. People seem to like arguing against that viewpoint, but I haven't seen anyone actually take up that particular position.

 

Read my next post.

 I did. I just thought it bore repeating. We're excited and cautiously optimistic for a version of Dark Sun that has matured and grown with the audience rather than pandering to nostalgia for edginess and toxicity. There's a pernicious persistency to the claims that we don't want new Dark Sun when the reality is we want better Dark Sun that's more fun for everybody to play. I want it to be challenging, sure, much like games in the soulslike genre (Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Lies of P, etc.) are rewarding for folks who like to be challenged to be pixel-perfect in their attack and dodge patterns in video games. But I don't want it to be challenging in the sense that the players at my table suffer emotional distress because parts of the world echo toxic, inexcusable things they've experienced in real life.

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I've never been a fan of "the death of the author" and always found the idea that meaning can be wholly divorced from any intent in what the author had to say to be terribly naive. As just a single example, one can't read Robert Frost's poetry and understand it and all its dark mood and sharp wit without understanding how tragedy shaped Frost's life and outlook on life. People can and indeed often do misinterpret an author's intended meaning, but that doesn't mean there was no meaning there in the first place, nor does it validate uncritically rejecting people's arguments about works being harmful.

For my part, the only people I've ever seen perform being offended as a sport are the ones who complain about everyone else doing it. "I'm offended that you're offended" is cliche projection. I have nothing charitable to say about a worldview arguing that people who raise valid criticisms of works should be actively disregarded and disrespected. Examine the things you love critically and be ready to admit that they can be problematic.

 
Regarding “death of the author”, as I understand it the point is not to disregard what is actually present in a work, but to separate that from interpretations back-engineered on the assumption that since the author is/feels X, anything they’ve written must promote, condone, etc. X by association.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

I didn't say someone in this thread said it should be banned, did I?

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 Now it's entirely possible I may have missed one or two posts, but I don't recall a single person saying the theme should be banned or WotC should be prevented from publishing it. People seem to like arguing against that viewpoint, but I haven't seen anyone actually take up that particular position.

 

Read my next post.

 I did. I just thought it bore repeating. We're excited and cautiously optimistic for a version of Dark Sun that has matured and grown with the audience rather than pandering to nostalgia for edginess and toxicity. There's a pernicious persistency to the claims that we don't want new Dark Sun when the reality is we want better Dark Sun that's more fun for everybody to play. I want it to be challenging, sure, much like games in the soulslike genre (Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Lies of P, etc.) are rewarding for folks who like to be challenged to be pixel-perfect in their attack and dodge patterns in video games. But I don't want it to be challenging in the sense that the players at my table suffer emotional distress because parts of the world echo toxic, inexcusable things they've experienced in real life.

Nobody has said you want to ban the setting. 

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

 
Agreed- I feel like they’d have done better to make a clean break and reiterate the concept rather than open themselves up to both the “they revived a setting that originally has X, therefore they must be promoting it” and the “they removed X, which proves they’re just going to woke-ify everything forever” to the degree that using the Dark Sun name will.

Then again, I’ve got attachment to Dark Sun and generally find grimdark to be an overdone and underwhelming genre, so I’m also not the target audience.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I've never been a fan of "the death of the author" and always found the idea that meaning can be wholly divorced from any intent in what the author had to say to be terribly naive. As just a single example, one can't read Robert Frost's poetry and understand it and all its dark mood and sharp wit without understanding how tragedy shaped Frost's life and outlook on life. People can and indeed often do misinterpret an author's intended meaning, but that doesn't mean there was no meaning there in the first place, nor does it validate uncritically rejecting people's arguments about works being harmful.

For my part, the only people I've ever seen perform being offended as a sport are the ones who complain about everyone else doing it. "I'm offended that you're offended" is cliche projection. I have nothing charitable to say about a worldview arguing that people who raise valid criticisms of works should be actively disregarded and disrespected. Examine the things you love critically and be ready to admit that they can be problematic.

 
Regarding “death of the author”, as I understand it the point is not to disregard what is actually present in a work, but to separate that from interpretations back-engineered on the assumption that since the author is/feels X, anything they’ve written must promote, condone, etc. X by association.

 You're not wrong, but I've seen applications of "death of the author" take it as far as saying no consideration whatsoever should be given to the author's life, experiences, etc. Now I'm not saying we can't understand what Mary Shelley was getting at with Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus without knowing what she had for breakfast on her 11th birthday. But I do think knowing a bit about her life and especially about the writing competition she and Percy and Byron and the other guy everyone forgets had during the Year Without a Summer helps with understanding the meaning and context of the text.

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

 

I didn't say someone in this thread said it should be banned, did I?

Then why mention it at all?

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

 

I didn't say someone in this thread said it should be banned, did I?

 

Then why mention it at all?

Why not? It's a general thought on how I think the controversy around this setting should be handled. 

Does it bother you somehow?

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

 

I didn't say someone in this thread said it should be banned, did I?

 

Then why mention it at all?

 

Why not? It's a general thought on how I think the controversy around this setting should be handled. 

So do you think it should be banned? Because it wasn't a "general thought" anyone else in this thread had until you brought it up

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein>>

So is the setting the problem or what people do with it?

 

At least in terms of OG Dark Sun, it was both

In my humble opinion, after following the interesting debate created throughout this thread, it's ok if someone doesn't like this setting, and it's totally understandable if they don't wanna play it. However, the fact that some people dislike Dark Sun due to its problematic themes shouldn't lead to its banning. As someone said above, people will decide with their money if the setting is a success or a failure.

 

I remain skeptical that WOTC will be able to thread the needle on creating a setting that is recognizably Dark Sun in a 5.5e context, but removes the problematic elements and other jagged edges while still being something people will enjoy. It's no skin off my nose if they prove wrong, though

Nobody in this entire thread has called for it to be "banned" though, at least not that I've seen. That's a handy strawman argument for folks that want to claim to be persecuted, but it's not reality

 

I didn't say someone in this thread said it should be banned, did I?

 

Then why mention it at all?

 

Why not? It's a general thought on how I think the controversy around this setting should be handled. 

 

So do you think it should be banned? Because it wasn't a "general thought" anyone else in this thread had until you brought it up

I think banning the setting is not one of the solutions. It doesn't matter if nobody has pointed it out before in this thread: several people in other forums and websites want it to be banned. 

What I meant with "general thought" was that it's a thought I had regarding this matter. I didn't mean that was what most people think.

Dark Sun moved a lot of people away from D&D.  i.e. they left the game.  Decades later some are starting to come back.  That is why there is history and baggage to using the words Dark Sun.

Quote from Character77006 >>

Dark Sun moved a lot of people away from D&D.  i.e. they left the game.  Decades later some are starting to come back.  That is why there is history and baggage to using the words Dark Sun.

 It didn't push me away from D&D altogether, but when the 4E version of Dark Sun came out I didn't get it. I liked some of the concepts and themes of the setting, but from edition to edition I grew up and got more understanding of the world and saw things more complexly and Dark Sun... didn't. I'll say that 4E Dark Sun wasn't as bad, but it still had room for improvement. But it was interesting to see how much fun people could still have with it - for example the Acquisitions Inc. podcast one-shot. Jerry DM'd a Dark Sun game for Mike, Scott, and Kris that was a lot of fun to listen to. The post-game episode where the talked about the world of Athas was a lot of fun and Scott came up with the best laconic description of Dark Sun I've heard: "It's like D&D only nobody has swords or water." That's been the core I've always thought a 5E version should build around, and as I've said before I'm cautiously optimistic they can pull off a mature, thoughtful, thought-provoking version of Dark Sun for 5.5E.

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I've never been a fan of "the death of the author" and always found the idea that meaning can be wholly divorced from any intent in what the author had to say to be terribly naive. As just a single example, one can't read Robert Frost's poetry and understand it and all its dark mood and sharp wit without understanding how tragedy shaped Frost's life and outlook on life. People can and indeed often do misinterpret an author's intended meaning, but that doesn't mean there was no meaning there in the first place, nor does it validate uncritically rejecting people's arguments about works being harmful.

For my part, the only people I've ever seen perform being offended as a sport are the ones who complain about everyone else doing it. "I'm offended that you're offended" is cliche projection. I have nothing charitable to say about a worldview arguing that people who raise valid criticisms of works should be actively disregarded and disrespected. Examine the things you love critically and be ready to admit that they can be problematic.

 
Regarding “death of the author”, as I understand it the point is not to disregard what is actually present in a work, but to separate that from interpretations back-engineered on the assumption that since the author is/feels X, anything they’ve written must promote, condone, etc. X by association.

 It's also to separate a work from the assumptions that the author has made about their work.  Because authors do make a lot of assumptions in their writing and don't necessarily understand that someone else who's reading the words they wrote will not have the same perspective.  Robert Heinlein once set out to write a novel about why racism is bad and we shouldn't do it.  The end result was Farnham's Freehold, a novel that was considered incredibly racist because Heinlein, as a wealthy white man who grew up before the Civil Rights Era simply didn't have a very good understanding about what the actual problems with racism were.

Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I've never been a fan of "the death of the author" and always found the idea that meaning can be wholly divorced from any intent in what the author had to say to be terribly naive. As just a single example, one can't read Robert Frost's poetry and understand it and all its dark mood and sharp wit without understanding how tragedy shaped Frost's life and outlook on life. People can and indeed often do misinterpret an author's intended meaning, but that doesn't mean there was no meaning there in the first place, nor does it validate uncritically rejecting people's arguments about works being harmful.

For my part, the only people I've ever seen perform being offended as a sport are the ones who complain about everyone else doing it. "I'm offended that you're offended" is cliche projection. I have nothing charitable to say about a worldview arguing that people who raise valid criticisms of works should be actively disregarded and disrespected. Examine the things you love critically and be ready to admit that they can be problematic.

 
Regarding “death of the author”, as I understand it the point is not to disregard what is actually present in a work, but to separate that from interpretations back-engineered on the assumption that since the author is/feels X, anything they’ve written must promote, condone, etc. X by association.

 It's also to separate a work from the assumptions that the author has made about their work.  Because authors do make a lot of assumptions in their writing and don't necessarily understand that someone else who's reading the words they wrote will not have the same perspective.  Robert Heinlein once set out to write a novel about why racism is bad and we shouldn't do it.  The end result was Farnham's Freehold, a novel that was considered incredibly racist because Heinlein, as a wealthy white man who grew up before the Civil Rights Era simply didn't have a very good understanding about what the actual problems with racism were.

 
I see. Thanks.

Quote from PsyrenXY >>

xx

Aren't Gith canonically on Athas? And even some Mindflayers were present in Wake of the Ravager 30+ years ago. So playing up the space/multiverse stuff a bit more isn't a big stretch, when a bunch of it is already there.

 They desend from the time before Athas was cut off from the rest of the planes. It is possible that the Gith lived in Celik before the fall. 

Quote from ApplePaladin >>

I've never been a fan of "the death of the author" ...

 Should only be used for Works of Fiction where the profits and money do not go to the Author or any causes that were an issue. 

That lady who does and says evil stuff with childrens books, no death of the author she uses the money to harm people, HPL dead in 1937, money never went to harming others, most of the works are written by other people anyway. 

Darksun, aka D&D Gygax had issues,  one of his sons was an issue both are dead, TSR purchased Gygax out of D&D, then in 2000 WotC purchased TSR (WotC owned by hasbro) Dark Sun is not subject to 'Death of the Author' as there is no one author, and the company that ultimately profits from Darksun is problematic (As are all capitalistic companies) there becomes a point where you can't live without going off grid, you will be giving money to problematic people, either in Taxes, food at the market, drinks you drink, water and power, fuel for transportation, electricity for the internet, ISPs, Component manufacturers, ect. 

You have to draw a line on what is too evil to support. My line is very simple, can I name the evil person who is benefitiing from the purchase, if so No, if not shrug and make the purchase. 

So that hateful author is a no, the internet marketplace that everyone uses sadly yes, AI supporting MicroSlop No (Linux can bypass them entirely), ect. 

DarkSun has issues, but they are framed as being evil, and yes bad people like to glorify bad things, most people will see the evil and realize it is the the thing to destroy in a DarkSun game. 

And If I run a DarkSun game, I will rename my Sorcerer Kings and Queens to match the who's who of Global Billionaires. 

Quote from MackAdams >>

So why can't you just be content with the softer settings you DO have, instead of insisting that those of us who want this one are in the wrong for wanting it?

For my part, I'm gonna enjoy the one win that Team Grognard finally got.  And while I'm not normally one to dip into schadenfreude, I might have to make an exception if y'all keep crying.

Nobody is "crying" at the mere thought of Dark Sun getting republished. We just want it to evolve, which means altering/abstracting or at the very least downplaying some of the more extreme elements and mechanics that past iterations of it had. There don't need to be rules supplements detailing "owners," or branding, or... actually I'm going to stop there because again, I'd rather the thread stay open.

Quote from JaimeVonCarstein >>

It doesn't matter if nobody has pointed it out before in this thread: several people in other forums and websites want it to be banned.

 Then it might be more fruitful to argue that point with those other people, rather than ascribing their wants and motivations to the folks here?

Is it going to make things worse if I ask what pronouns Caerwyn uses?

I have been assuming masculine since Caerwyn is a masculine Welsh name, but MackAdams seems to be assuming feminine likely because of the PFP.  Might head off some ugliness if we just get that established.