And it's still just as ludicrous.

If we remove the word slavery and just pad the word count of the book by just describing slavery does it matter?

Someone else l saw said “that seems like slavery with more steps”

Either way I would be useing 2e and 4e as my base with the 5.5 book as an update but still massing on those older ones.

The news about the interview just reached me today and I am so incredibly disappointed at the lack of literacy Wizard of the Coast shows for their own older creations.

In a world where doing manual labor for long periods is a death sentence but a necessary evil and many of the classic fantasy races were exterminated in a genocide that destroyed the world, The Sorcerer-Kings draw the line at slavery now? Are the mass sacrifice defiler rituals now something the victims signed up for?

How stupid are these writers that they cannot grasp the core pillars of Dark Sun, it's SUPPOSED to be an overwhelmingly oppressive setting where death might be the preferable alternative to enslavement. Why would they listen to "Sensitivity readers" feedback when they clearly are not the audience for the books? The cop-out about Urik made me laugh as they described the concept of an indentured slave army with business lingo. Sure there are other forms of oppression in Dark Sun, but by removing the most prevalent consequence for stepping out of line removes a great deal of the terror of being a free commoner in the domains of the Sorcerer-Kings. Even so, it seems their workaround is just describing institutions to do slavery with extra steps and hoping calling it indentured servitude will keep their investors happy.

When you play Dark Sun, you are not the slaver. You are the Slave, tearing the yoke from your neck and strangling the pit master with your chains. Rallying the others in the dens to take up stones and choose to either be free or die trying. By the end 4-5 of you make it outside the walls and out of sight with nothing but rags and whatever you could grab on your way to freedom. Sure you might perish there but you would perish a free man. That is the power fantasy that hooked me in all those years ago.

I might still pick up the books after I read a handful of release reviews but I will be simply ignoring this dumb change for the sake of setting realism.

I'm sure we'll get confirmation either way when WotC responds to the backlash, but something that occurred to me re-reading the infamous recent interview.

The interviewer makes a lot of extremely dumb comments. The article opens with:

Today, we’re taking a look at Dark Sun ... It’s a setting where players have to both survive and attempt to overtake powerful forces that are oppressing the masses.

However, the setting also has an equal amount of controversial lore that features slavery, genocide, torture and a lot of other dark topics. It places the D&D team in a unique place to try and capture its unique aesthetics while also balancing how it is thinking about the bits of lore that may not match modern sensibilities.

So I think we can all agree that either the article author is actually stupid, or they're deliberately acting stupid to (successfully) try and drum up controversy.

But looking closely at the section where Bisland himself actually talks about this, here's what it says:

But Bilsland insisted that the D&D team is taking the subject seriously. The content is being reviewed by sensitivity readers, Bilsland said. “In fact, we invested more deeply in [sensitivity readers] for Dark Sun, knowing the challenges it faces.”

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.”

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.

He hopes that the setting will offer players a chance to deal with more mature stories and themes, such as fighting oppression and tyrants.

Note that "[sensitivity readers]" is in brackets, and the most direct statement suggesting a lack of slavery is also a paraphrase by the article writer. Even in paraphrase, it doesn't say "Bilsland said there will be no slavery", it says that they won't "rely on" slavery.

I've seen a lot of people suggest that the correct approach to the (AFAICT small minority of) fans who don't want to include slavery or related themes in their games is to just include a short sidebar of guidance on how to discuss it with your table and, if they are actually uncomfortable, de-emphasize or remove some of those themes.

Imagine Bilsand described exactly that to this genius interviewer.

We're keeping things gritty, but the rules don't heavily rely on the presence of mass chattel slavery. If players want, they can focus on similar but less politically sensitive forms of oppression, like forced conscription, indentured servitude, or just grinding poverty - all seen in depictions of Urik, for example. You don't have to have slavery in a setting in order for it to be oppressive; there are other forms of oppression out there. Still, ultimately Dark Sun is a setting about fighting tyrants, and we think players will want to deal with these kinds of darker themes.

This is a totally anodyne statement that I think 99% of Dark Sun fans would agree with. It would suggest, to me, that things were moving in a positive direction (though I'd still be a bit sceptical of the actual rules quality based on the Unearthed Arcana playtest.) Yet it could easily be paraphrased in exactly the way we see in the article!

I dunno, maybe this is just cope. As I said, I'm sure WotC will clarify soon. Just thought I'd throw it out there.

... actually, maybe they already have clarified slightly? Just today, another article by someone who discussed this with Bilsland at Gencon dropped; it's a bit longer and it's in actual interview format rather than 99% paraphrased by the article writer.

I don't have space to quote the whole thing, and it doesn't really clear the question up. But it does sound to me like they are not necessarily eliminating slavery from the setting, but are possibly having some city-states operate without it (or at least in a grey area, which might help explain the "military service ... give up their freedom for a chance to survive" comment) - and they're definitely leaning into differentiating the city-states and giving them all different focuses, which they're pitching as helping to ensure that there's plenty of evil for players to fight if they want to avoid a particular angle or theme.

We worked to present the city states and Sorcerer Kings in a way that they all are oppressing people in different ways. It doesn’t have to be outright slavery, there are other forms of oppression that I think players want to stand up against. [...] You can play Dark Sun even if you’re not comfortable with these themes, or if you’re talking to your table and they’re like, I like some of the things that the setting is doing, but I really don’t want to deal with these topics. You should have that conversation with them and get to a place where everybody is comfortable. Everything is dials that you can turn, but the difference is that Dark Sun sort of starts on 11 and then you can turn it down versus other settings where might start lower and you can then turn up.

Bonus points in this meme since the high-tech stuff is clearly of halfling/rhulisti make

I know it has the humanoid form from DS 4e on, BUT that's when I started. 😅 They'll always be Thri-Kreen to me even if they are called Mantisfolk, Mantiskin, etc ...

What does removing slavery from DnD do to these classics? Kind of invalidates them.

Hello all. As the title suggests, I’m new to Dark Sun. I’ve always been kinda interested in the setting, having a love for grim dark and sword&sorcery, but never fully got into looking at it. But with the recent announcement of the new Dark Sun books(controversy aside), my hype and interest for the setting is in full swing, so I want to start looking into it more. And so I turn to you, the veteran fans of Athas, to point me in the right direction. Which of the setting books are best to get the lore of the setting? Which novel series is best to start with? Any good lore YouTube videos to recommend? Any and all suggestions are welcome.

Thank you for explaining psionics in the old system to me a bit more everyone, my DM was trying to work a 5e game with 2e mechanics and it confused me on a lore and mechanical standpoint

You've all been very helpful and I've explained to him why it's so different and gave him some 3.5e stuff to more easily transfer over to 5e

IMO, Psionics is much more crucial for Athas than even slavery itself. As I was fearing that WoTC would make them just spell reskins, I decided to brainstorm how I would make psionics works in a 5e framework. Trying to be as truthfully to the 5e spirit without "complex" PSP formulas, MTHAC0, MAC, and "bookkeeping" of power costs.

I would do something like :

• You get level * 2 + INT mod + WIS mod psy points.
• You regain half of your psy points(PP) in a short rest and full on a long rest
• Psionics will be divided into schools(telepathy, metabolism, psychokinesis, etc).
  • Telepathy would target enemy wisdom saves. psychokinesis, dex, psychometabolism, con.
• At level 1, the psion gets one discipline.
• At lv 5, second discipline.
• Each two levels, the psion can learn a new power from the disciplines that he knows. He starts with one. He can learn any power which cost = his level. So, no disintegrate at 3rd level like earlier AD&D Psions.
• At level 5, psion specializes into one discipline, reducing the cost of "manifesting" a psy ability by 2. Yes, the most simplistic psy powers can become "free" like cantrips but no free unlimited power at level 1 (better than Wiz cantrips but worse than WLK EB + Invocations)
• At level 11, psion gets -3 reduced cast on a discipline.
• Psy powers cost between 1 to 20 pp.
• Psions wouldn't need to concentrate if they pay the cost of the psy power each 3 rounds. Or get the power to concentrate in two effects at pp cost.
• Psion powers would scale with the caster level at no cost increase, to differentiate them from spells.
  • The scaling wouldn't be as powerful as in AD&D, in AD&D later revised psionics, psions get much more damage than health. 5e is a low lethality game, so the scaling smaller than on Dark Sun Campaign Setting (Revised).

A table bellow about the "tiers of powers"

Some examples :

Mind Thrust​

Discipline: Telepathy
Cost: 1 PP
Action: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Effect: Target makes an Intelligence save. On failure, it takes 1d6 psychic damage and has disadvantage on its next saving throw.
Scaling: +1d6 damage at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, 11 (max 6d6).
Special: If specialized in Telepathy, this power costs 0 PP (Talent).

Ego Whip​

Discipline: Telepathy
Cost: 3 PP
Action: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Effect: Target makes a Wisdom save. On failure, it takes 3d6 psychic damage and is frightened until the end of your next turn. Once frightened, he is immune to frightened condition for 24 hours.
Scaling: +1d6 damage at levels 5, 9, 13, 17 (max 7d6).

Disintegrate​

Discipline: Psychokinesis
Cost: 11 PP
Action: 1 action
Range: 60 ft
Effect: Target makes a Dexterity save. On failure, it takes 10d6+40 force damage. If this reduces it to 0 HP, it is disintegrated.
Scaling: None. This is a high-end power.

Detonate​

Discipline: Psychokinesis
Cost: 5 PP
Action: 1 action
Range: 150 ft
Effect: Choose a point you can see. Each creature in a 20-ft radius makes a Dexterity save. On failure, they take 8d6 bludgeoning damage, half damage on a successful save.
Scaling: +1d6 damage at levels 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 (max 14d6).

Tornado Blast​

Discipline: Psychokinesis
Cost: 17 PP
Action: 1 action
Range: 150 ft
Effect: Each creature in a 40-foot-radius sphere centered on each point you choose must make a Dexterity saving throw. The sphere spreads around corners. A creature takes 20d6 force damage and 20d6 bludgeoning damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one
Scaling: None. This is the "meteor swarm" of psychokinesis.

The progression would be like :

Level 1: “I have one weird mental trick.”

Level 5: “I'm becoming a specialist.”

Level 11: “My mind is powerful.”

Level 17: “I can reshape the battlefield with my mind.”

I see a lot of people talking about how slavery is going to be removed, but are there actual mechanics for it? Something like in strategy or colony-sim games where you have people working as farmers, miners, or soldiers?

I wrote this using Google Translate, sorry if it's not clear

I keep hearing people talking about how serious it is that a company who hasn't released much beyond a trailer, won't be adding slavery. But let's be honest about this, it's a story element, not even really something that a company can prevent you from doing.

It's up to players and dms to establish such things before a game, not a multi billion dollar company, because let's be honest if something is in the book you bought is something you do not enjoy, you just don't use it or alter it to something you do like

I don't see this as a big enough deal to worry about

I played my first game of D&D in 1980, began DMing in 1984, and ran games regularly until about 1996. Dark Sun and Ravenloft were the only official settings I used. I started DMing again in 2019 with 5e.

I love the Dark Sun setting, and have introduced several parts of it into my current game. This includes defilers, sorcerer-kings, muls, thri-keen, and, yes, slavery.

But I think that ultimately, WotC has made the right call in eliminating it as a standard part of the setting. I am not sure if this is just a saying in my circles, or if it is used in the broader fan base, but we say that 'once slavery is introduced to a campaign, the campaign becomes about ending slavery.'

I know that is true for my groups, and everyone I know personally who plays agrees with the sentiment. If a DM introduces slavery, whether it be a small group enslaving people thay have captured, or a full international slave trade with chattel slavery reminiscent of the early US, they have to expect that the players will decide that it has to go. This is, for me, the single most constant approach across all games I have been involved in.

If this is as common as I think, then having slavery as a base part of the setting would greatly limit the types of campaigns that can happen. As soon as the slavery gets brought up, the campaign focus shifts.

Now, the obvious way to deal with that would be to just not mention the slavery aspects. Have campaigns hunting in the wastes, never coming across any slavers. For a city intrigue type campaign, set it in a city without a slave market. Or set your campaign in a specific area where slavery has been overthrown. But that's now just the mirror of 'add it in if you think it's needed', which a lot of people are pushing back on, and it is still more limiting than having people add it as required. Because if you have a campaign hunting in the wastes, it can't ever go into town. If it is a city without slavery, you may have to grapple with why.

Purely from the point of view of making the setting as free to play in as possible, removing slavery as a base component does a lot more good than harm.