TTRPG Insider article on Dark suns

I outright agreed with you on the first point. Avoiding presentation that suggests buying slaves is an option for players is 100% something I'm behind.

For your second point, I can appreciate your point about using absolute language. I would say that in narrative terms you still need to honor the threat if it's raised- if I was writing out a module for this in the vein of say the Witcher-verse I'd have some opportunity to let a slave make a break for it, only for him to turn up executed down the line. Not because I think slaves shouldn't escape, but because if I'm telling the story of a screwed up world where heroism is less an uphill battle and more free-climbing a near vertical plane, then starting to push back against the powers that be means they're gonna push back hard. That's not to say it should always fail, but given WotC's own stated position on the setting premise I would say it should take significant legwork to achieve and connotations that this was an exceptional occurrence. Ultimately depends on what part of the grey spectrum they want this to fall.

For the third- I also take your point. For myself, I prefer a little more exploration of context and intention vs simple actions and am a bit leery of the implicit license to execute and have done with the matter that tends to be attached to humanoids with an Evil alignment, when applied to a system a tyrant will have imposed on a society, particularly with the usual fantasy imbalance of power that precludes a "storming the Bastille" solution to said tyranny. "Anyone involved in slave trade/labor is 100% Evil and should be sent to the Hells forthwith" just seems like more of a Forgotten Realms concept than a Dark Sun one, where the line between slave and peasant is fine enough that how some treats another person could be more telling than which label is applied to them. Going all Evil is probably the safer choice, but with a lot of work I think there's room to explore the people who end up in the muck because that's where they were dropped and have to figure out how to cope from within the system. You ever read the Mistborn trilogy?

Quote from Davyd>>

There is a difference between saying "Athas is cruel and many freed slaves face harsh fates once liberate" and "It's better to be a slave than free and dead". It's never better to be a slave and the only people who say that are people who think it's okay to own other people as property. 

I do not want to wade into this particular back and forth, but the above is a very good example of why sensitivity readers can be helpful.  The first part of this post is what the product should probably read - it acknowledges the realities of the setting, preserves the grimdark vibe, but then leaves it up to the DM to decide what will happen next.

It is the second part where the post becomes unintentionally problematic. By following the dichotomy of “slave” vs “die free” (which was correctly used in a vacuum as an illustration) with “never better to be a slave,” weighing in on the otherwise illustrative dichotomy in favor of free death over slavery.

Which is a sentiment I think a lot of folks might agree with… but it is a sentiment with some historical baggage a sensitivity reader might pick up on.  The “it is better to die free than die a slave” has a lot of historical usage by non-enslaved individuals who are anti-slavery, but essentially moralize at those held in bondage and shift the blame onto them, not the slaveholders.   The general historical use has connotations of “obviously we know the slave holders are bad, but you have failed yourself by not choosing to fight and die over life.”  From American slavery to the Holocaust, it is one thing to want people to fight back… but it is another to speak in absolutes that result in blame shifting.

To be very clear, I do not think that was Davyd’s point or intention.  As already said, I agree with their proposed neutral language, that neither condones slavery nor veers into historically problematic moralizing at the slaves.  But a lot of this thread has been discussing the role of sensitivity readers.  The above lines show that, even with the best intentions, you might still say something that is unintentionally concerning.  A sensitivity reader would pick up on that, point it out, and then give the author the option of deciding what to do next.  In a case like this, it would be less about censoring the author, and more about helping the author convey their point in a way consistent with what the author wanted to do in the first place.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from Davyd>>

There is a difference between saying "Athas is cruel and many freed slaves face harsh fates once liberate" and "It's better to be a slave than free and dead". It's never better to be a slave and the only people who say that are people who think it's okay to own other people as property. 

 

I do not want to wade into this particular back and forth, but the above is a very good example of why sensitivity readers can be helpful.  The first part of this post is what the product should probably read - it acknowledges the realities of the setting, preserves the grimdark vibe, but then leaves it up to the DM to decide what will happen next.

It is the second part where the post becomes unintentionally problematic. By following the dichotomy of “slave” vs “die free” (which was correctly used in a vacuum as an illustration) with “never better to be a slave,” weighing in on the otherwise illustrative dichotomy in favor of free death over slavery.

Which is a sentiment I think a lot of folks might agree with… but it is a sentiment with some historical baggage a sensitivity reader might pick up on.  The “it is better to die free than die a slave” has a lot of historical usage by non-enslaved individuals who are anti-slavery, but essentially moralize at those held in bondage and shift the blame onto them, not the slaveholders.   The general historical use has connotations of “obviously we know the slave holders are bad, but you have failed yourself by not choosing to fight and die over life.”  From American slavery to the Holocaust, it is one thing to want people to fight back… but it is another to speak in absolutes that result in blame shifting.

To be very clear, I do not think that was Davyd’s point or intention.  As already said, I agree with their proposed neutral language, that neither condones slavery nor veers into historically problematic moralizing at the slaves.  But a lot of this thread has been discussing the role of sensitivity readers.  The above lines show that, even with the best intentions, you might still say something that is unintentionally concerning.  A sensitivity reader would pick up on that, point it out, and then give the author the option of deciding what to do next.  In a case like this, it would be less about censoring the author, and more about helping the author convey their point in a way consistent with what the author wanted to do in the first place.

I will say I did intentionally avoid the trite "it's better to die free than live as a slave" and instead limited my opinion to simply the assertion that being a slave is never the "better" option in the context of justification and apologetics for slavery. But you're right that this does demonstrate the necessity for sensitivity readers, which is just a professional way of saying "people who have the knowledge and experience to bring diverse and often overlooked viewpoints"

With that in mind, I would like to clarify my sentiment is "slavery is never something that should objectively be presented as the better or preferable option in an absolutist sense". You're right that historically many people have been forced to persist and endure within enslavement in order to pursue freedom, and my shallow and simplistic statement overlooks a lot. 

I was there when it was first released. I had to have my mother vouch that I could handle it before I could buy it from the comic shop guy.
She had to admit to this man that i was watching stuff like Alien or the Chuck Norris Missing in Action films befor he would sell it to me. 
I don't remember a mature label, but it was being treated (at least by that shop) as being mature material. 
This new version will be shrink wrapped with a label, and I will likely be carded when I buy it despite the gray in my beard. 
The world was so full of interesting things and there was so much gritty peril that looks like it will still be intact. 
Sword, Psionics, survival. That was the name of the game.
The slavery was the most banal and boring one.

Ok OP. As one OG Dark Sun player to another. No vague "woke" "Censorship" or other buzzwords, just your answers from your personal wants and desires.
Why is the slavery aspect so important to you? 
Why is its diminishment so upsetting to you personally? 
What about sensitivity readers bothers you so much when they are just consultants and can be ignored, as they have been in the past on notable occasions?

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MasterPhyle >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

When I see that listed in content, its a sign of censorship. 

 This take seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what service sensitivity readers offer. They don't censor anything, they don't tell WotC what they can and cannot publish. All sensitivity readers do is offer insight from a perspective that exists outside the team that makes the product. They give WotC information as to how their products might affect people and then WotC makes the decision if they want to keep that content as-is, modify it, or remove it.

That's not censorship, that's good design. You should really understand something before maligning it

 

Sensetivity reader ( even if they not censor) and slavery reduced is the woke stuff WOTC is criticised for. Lets hope for the shareholders that the "modern audience" brings in more money than the ppl they lost already and will not win back that way. With this Marketing singals the content can be as good desinged as they want. Still does not change anything for that customer base.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, what part of slavery do you think is so integral to Dark Sun that it absolutely must be present for the product to be acceptable to you?

Slavery is a foundational pillar of the original Dark Sun setting (Athas) because it defines the economy, social hierarchy, power of the sorcerer-kings, and the overall tone of extreme oppression and scarcity.

Athas is a resource-starved, post-apocalyptic desert world ruined by defiling magic. The city-states of the Tyr Region (Tyr, Urik, Draj, Nibenay) are ruled by immortal or near immortal sorcerer-kings who are former champions of the ancient warlord Rajaat who now maintain absolute tyrannical control. In this environment of extreme scarcity (water, metal, arable land, and labor are all precious), the cities’ economies and infrastructure run on forced labor:

• Slaves perform the bulk of physical work: field agriculture under the brutal sun, quarry and mine labor, construction of monuments and walls, domestic service, caravan packing, and gladiatorial combat for public entertainment.
• People become slaves through birth, capture in raids or war, debt, criminal condemnation by templars, or simply angering someone more powerful. Children of slaves are generally born into slavery.
• Specific races were deliberately engineered as slave stock. Muls (sterile human-dwarf hybrids) were bred for endurance and strength as ideal laborers and gladiators; half-giants were created as powerful soldiers and heavy laborers. Their existence is itself a product of the slave system.

Official material (the original boxed set, Slave Tribes, and related books) explicitly treats Athasian society as a slave society. Free citizens, nobles, merchant houses, and templars all sit above a massive enslaved underclass that does the work that keeps the cities functioning. The sorcerer kings and their templar bureaucracy maintain and benefit from this system because it provides cheap labor, a permanent underclass that cannot easily threaten the social order, and bodies for the annual life-force levies needed to keep Rajaat imprisoned.

Why it is “integral” rather than incidental

• Economic necessity in a broken world: Without abundant free labor or technology, the cities rely on slaves to produce food, extract resources, and build. Removing the institution would collapse the economic model the setting was built around.
• Thematic reinforcement of tyranny and survival: Dark Sun is deliberately anti heroic and anti authoritarian. The sorcerer kings are absolute tyrants who have already reduced the planet to a resource. Reducing people to property is the logical extension. Freedom (or the fight for it) becomes one of the few meaningful goals. Escaped slave tribes, gladiator uprisings, and the eventual liberation of Tyr are major plot and campaign drivers.
• World texture and adventure hooks: Gladiatorial arenas, slave markets, overseers, branding, the constant threat of re-enslavement, and the existence of free (but precarious) slave tribes in the wilderness are everyday features of Athasian life. Player characters frequently start as slaves, ex-slaves, or people whose lives are shaped by the institution.
• Moral and narrative weight: The setting presents slavery as an evil, oppressive system upheld by the villains. Heroes often fight against it or live in its shadow. It is not treated as neutral or positive; it is part of what makes Athas uniquely harsh and the sorcerer-kings uniquely monstrous.

In short, slavery is not flavor text it is structural. The city states “crouch upon the backs of slaves.” The scarcity, the tyranny of the sorcerer kings, the engineered slave races, the gladiatorial culture, and the desperate value of freedom all interlock around it. Later discussions about adapting the setting sometimes propose reducing or reframing the institution, but in the classic material it remains one of the defining pillars of what Athas is.

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.  Meanwhile, WotC is also trying to get sales again by selling to the broad market again.  Maybe the name "Dark Sun" and 18+ on the package will do the sales.  The problem for WotC is word of mouth on WotC products, Spelljammer being the last setting that caused brand damage to WotC, there will likely not be a huge amount of pre-sales for Dark Sun.  Word of mouth on the game removing core elements is not going to help it sell.  The idea is, well now its the draft and the government drafting you that are the boogie man, rather than being enslaved.  If WotC can put out a decent ruleset for Dark Sun, the fans can run it and simply jettison any additional material (modules, no sale) that Wotc puts out for Dark Sun and use existing lore.

Okay, this helps a lot. Yes, I appreciate that they don’t want to use terminology and such that could been seen as or even near to objective support of slavery. I do think that given the setting, stated objectives, and genre there’s room to avoid that and explore how characters in the setting engage with the issues from the inside, and that the circumstances can preclude the viability or acceptance of the traditional heroic approach and explore the situational ethics that arise. As this discourse has proven, it’s the kind of thing that requires a lot of eyes looking at what’s written from different perspectives to ensure the correct point is being communicated.

Edit: To be clear, responding to Caerwyn and Davyd

Quote from Portential >>

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.   

You're lying again, it's not once been said that WotC is removing slavery from Dark Sun.

Again, all that's been said is that it won't rely on slavery as a narrative tool and also stated the truism that slavery isn't required to make a setting oppressive.

He also reinforced that the grittiness of the setting will still exist, but it won’t rely on narratives of mass slavery. “You don't have to have slavery in a setting if in order for it to be oppressive,” Bilsland emphasized. “There are other forms of oppression out there.”

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.   

You're lying again, it's not once been said that WotC is removing slavery from Dark Sun.

Again, all that's been said is that it won't rely on slavery as a narrative tool and also stated the truism that slavery isn't required to make a setting oppressive.

He also reinforced that the grittiness of the setting will still exist, but it won’t rely on narratives of mass slavery. “You don't have to have slavery in a setting if in order for it to be oppressive,” Bilsland emphasized. “There are other forms of oppression out there.”

 

 The core element of Dark Suns was oppressive slavery, well now we are replacing it with the oppressive draft.  Give me a break.  Sure it exists, but its really not the main problem, now its the draft.  Come on.  Oh look, there is a slave over there, ok, now we are all draftees in an oppressive system, we need to fight against the system.  Will Muls or Half Giants be present, lets wait and see on that one,. Most likely how they came about will be retconned, I mean after from WotC staff on Half Orc and Half Elves:

“Frankly, we are not comfortable, and haven’t been for years with any of the options that start with ‘half’…The half construction is inherently racist so we simply aren’t going to include it in the new Player’s Handbook. If someone wants to play those character options, they’ll still be in D&D Beyond. They’ll still be in the 2014 Player’s Handbook.”

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MasterPhyle >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

When I see that listed in content, its a sign of censorship. 

 This take seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what service sensitivity readers offer. They don't censor anything, they don't tell WotC what they can and cannot publish. All sensitivity readers do is offer insight from a perspective that exists outside the team that makes the product. They give WotC information as to how their products might affect people and then WotC makes the decision if they want to keep that content as-is, modify it, or remove it.

That's not censorship, that's good design. You should really understand something before maligning it

 

Sensetivity reader ( even if they not censor) and slavery reduced is the woke stuff WOTC is criticised for. Lets hope for the shareholders that the "modern audience" brings in more money than the ppl they lost already and will not win back that way. With this Marketing singals the content can be as good desinged as they want. Still does not change anything for that customer base.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, what part of slavery do you think is so integral to Dark Sun that it absolutely must be present for the product to be acceptable to you?

[snipped: a bunch of AI slop]

The fact that you couldn't be bothered to write that yourself isn't exactly helping your argument here.

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.   

You're lying again, it's not once been said that WotC is removing slavery from Dark Sun.

Again, all that's been said is that it won't rely on slavery as a narrative tool and also stated the truism that slavery isn't required to make a setting oppressive.

He also reinforced that the grittiness of the setting will still exist, but it won’t rely on narratives of mass slavery. “You don't have to have slavery in a setting if in order for it to be oppressive,” Bilsland emphasized. “There are other forms of oppression out there.”

 

 The core element of Dark Suns was oppressive slavery, well now we are replacing it with the oppressive draft.  Give me a break.  Sure it exists, but its really not the main problem, now its the draft.  Come on.

No, the core element of Dark Sun singular (come on, at this point you've gotta realise misnaming the setting you claim to care so much about is giving larper, right?) is the desperate need for survival in the face of a harsh and dying world. Slavery is just one manifestation of that, and if that's all you've boiled Dark Sun (again, singular) down to, you either don't know the setting or have a very disturbing fixation with that one facet. Here are some other things that make Dark Sun compelling:

• The death of the gods and the loss of hope
• Magic and the struggle between defiling and preserving
• The despotic rules of the Sorcerer Kings and the inherent friction between the cities being both the last bastion of "civilisation" and a hellish pit of suffering
• The interpretations of the various species through a fresh lense
• The subversion of what heroism means in the face of an endless struggle for survival

Also what are you talking about with "now we are replacing it with the oppressive draft", again you're making things up. For anyone else, here's the context:

He gave the example of Urik, a city in Dark Sun that controls one of the leading armies in the region. That’s because the leadership regularly presses people into military service, or convinces the poor to give up their freedom for a chance to survive.

You took one example of how they're painting the setting with various shades of oppressiveness and one of those shades is basically the military industrial complex.

Once again, you're lying or—if I'm being very generous—grossly misrepresenting what's being said to further push notion that they're removing/replacing slavery as a theme in the setting.

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues >>

Quote from MasterPhyle >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

When I see that listed in content, its a sign of censorship. 

 This take seems to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding as to what service sensitivity readers offer. They don't censor anything, they don't tell WotC what they can and cannot publish. All sensitivity readers do is offer insight from a perspective that exists outside the team that makes the product. They give WotC information as to how their products might affect people and then WotC makes the decision if they want to keep that content as-is, modify it, or remove it.

That's not censorship, that's good design. You should really understand something before maligning it

 

Sensetivity reader ( even if they not censor) and slavery reduced is the woke stuff WOTC is criticised for. Lets hope for the shareholders that the "modern audience" brings in more money than the ppl they lost already and will not win back that way. With this Marketing singals the content can be as good desinged as they want. Still does not change anything for that customer base.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, what part of slavery do you think is so integral to Dark Sun that it absolutely must be present for the product to be acceptable to you?

 

Slavery is a foundational pillar of the original Dark Sun setting (Athas) because it defines the economy, social hierarchy, power of the sorcerer-kings, and the overall tone of extreme oppression and scarcity.

Athas is a resource-starved, post-apocalyptic desert world ruined by defiling magic. The city-states of the Tyr Region (Tyr, Urik, Draj, Nibenay) are ruled by immortal or near immortal sorcerer-kings who are former champions of the ancient warlord Rajaat who now maintain absolute tyrannical control. In this environment of extreme scarcity (water, metal, arable land, and labor are all precious), the cities’ economies and infrastructure run on forced labor:

• Slaves perform the bulk of physical work: field agriculture under the brutal sun, quarry and mine labor, construction of monuments and walls, domestic service, caravan packing, and gladiatorial combat for public entertainment.
• People become slaves through birth, capture in raids or war, debt, criminal condemnation by templars, or simply angering someone more powerful. Children of slaves are generally born into slavery.
• Specific races were deliberately engineered as slave stock. Muls (sterile human-dwarf hybrids) were bred for endurance and strength as ideal laborers and gladiators; half-giants were created as powerful soldiers and heavy laborers. Their existence is itself a product of the slave system.

Official material (the original boxed set, Slave Tribes, and related books) explicitly treats Athasian society as a slave society. Free citizens, nobles, merchant houses, and templars all sit above a massive enslaved underclass that does the work that keeps the cities functioning. The sorcerer kings and their templar bureaucracy maintain and benefit from this system because it provides cheap labor, a permanent underclass that cannot easily threaten the social order, and bodies for the annual life-force levies needed to keep Rajaat imprisoned.

Why it is “integral” rather than incidental

• Economic necessity in a broken world: Without abundant free labor or technology, the cities rely on slaves to produce food, extract resources, and build. Removing the institution would collapse the economic model the setting was built around.
• Thematic reinforcement of tyranny and survival: Dark Sun is deliberately anti heroic and anti authoritarian. The sorcerer kings are absolute tyrants who have already reduced the planet to a resource. Reducing people to property is the logical extension. Freedom (or the fight for it) becomes one of the few meaningful goals. Escaped slave tribes, gladiator uprisings, and the eventual liberation of Tyr are major plot and campaign drivers.
• World texture and adventure hooks: Gladiatorial arenas, slave markets, overseers, branding, the constant threat of re-enslavement, and the existence of free (but precarious) slave tribes in the wilderness are everyday features of Athasian life. Player characters frequently start as slaves, ex-slaves, or people whose lives are shaped by the institution.
• Moral and narrative weight: The setting presents slavery as an evil, oppressive system upheld by the villains. Heroes often fight against it or live in its shadow. It is not treated as neutral or positive; it is part of what makes Athas uniquely harsh and the sorcerer-kings uniquely monstrous.

In short, slavery is not flavor text it is structural. The city states “crouch upon the backs of slaves.” The scarcity, the tyranny of the sorcerer kings, the engineered slave races, the gladiatorial culture, and the desperate value of freedom all interlock around it. Later discussions about adapting the setting sometimes propose reducing or reframing the institution, but in the classic material it remains one of the defining pillars of what Athas is.

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.  Meanwhile, WotC is also trying to get sales again by selling to the broad market again.  Maybe the name "Dark Sun" and 18+ on the package will do the sales.  The problem for WotC is word of mouth on WotC products, Spelljammer being the last setting that caused brand damage to WotC, there will likely not be a huge amount of pre-sales for Dark Sun.  Word of mouth on the game removing core elements is not going to help it sell.  The idea is, well now its the draft and the government drafting you that are the boogie man, rather than being enslaved.  If WotC can put out a decent ruleset for Dark Sun, the fans can run it and simply jettison any additional material (modules, no sale) that Wotc puts out for Dark Sun and use existing lore.

 It’s pretty obvious that all of this is AI. If you’re trying to argue your point, don’t be lazy and actually give us your reasons for why you think slavery should be the focal point of Dark Sun.

There's an irony here that you can tell when they're using AI because it gets the name of the setting right instead of calling it Dark Suns

Quote from Portential >>

Quote from Davyd >>

Quote from Portential >>

WotC is trying to avoid getting bad press from the vocal few by removing a core concept, slavery from Dark Suns.   

You're lying again, it's not once been said that WotC is removing slavery from Dark Sun.

Again, all that's been said is that it won't rely on slavery as a narrative tool and also stated the truism that slavery isn't required to make a setting oppressive.

He also reinforced that the grittiness of the setting will still exist, but it won’t rely on narratives of mass slavery. “You don't have to have slavery in a setting if in order for it to be oppressive,” Bilsland emphasized. “There are other forms of oppression out there.”

 

 The core element of Dark Suns was oppressive slavery, well now we are replacing it with the oppressive draft.  Give me a break.  Sure it exists, but its really not the main problem, now its the draft.  Come on.

 
The core element of “Dark Suns” [sic] was oppressive tyranny.  Slavery was one facet of that, but it was not the core facet.  It was not subtle.  Frankly, the fact that you think Slavery was the core of “Dark Suns” [sic] says more about you than it does about the setting - particularly in light of repeated mischaracterizations and outright lies you have said on this thread.

Here are the facts:

1. Wizards did not say it would remove slavery.  It said it would not “rely” on slavery as a tool to show oppression.  Which could actually be a plus - when you rely on something obviously evil (at least, obvious to most of us on this thread…), you run the risk of being lazy and neglect other elements.  “Slavery = bad = these guys are bad” is often overly simplistic and leads to less interesting world design.

2. Wizards is very comfortable dealing with slavery in its settings.  Even throughout 5e, we have had slaver societies with the Drow.  Drow society, however, does not “rely” on slavery to show the evils of that society - slavery is one facet of a multi-pillar, complex society that worships an evil goddess.

3. Wizards built a team of designers who love grimdark content and know how to handle complex, challenging themes.  These are not the kind of people who want to simplify a setting - they’re the people who want to add complexity and darkness, beyond just the easy low-hanging fruit.

At the end of the day, you are choosing to be outraged over a product that has not been released yet.  And I think you maybe need to read what you are actually arguing against.  Most folks on this thread are saying “Slavery has a place in Dark Sun, but we’d like to see Wizards handle slavery in a way that doesn’t repeat the apologetic justifications of real world hate speech.”  You are saying “you are wrong, slavery has a place in Dark Suns [sic].”

Maybe think about how that reads and what it looks a lot like you are advocating for.  After all, if everyone is in agreement that slavery has a place in the setting - including Wizards based on the very quote you keep mischaracterizing - then what exactly are you telling others they are wrong about?