TwoSix
"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
I'm going with the square root of 33 edition. Trying to decide on the size of the iteration is.... irrational.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D (2024) Is the 2024 rules update a new edition? Argue about it here (not everywhere else)!
- Thread starter Whizbang Dustyboots
- Start date
Gorck
Prince of Dorkness
The #1 rule of the internet: you either absolutely love something with every fiber of your being or you hate it with the fury of a thousand white hot suns. There is no in between.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
No. It looks like it will be as compatible as LevelUp, Black Flag, or other clones. But it doesn't matter. From my perspective, the word "edition" has become toxic in the community and it should be dropped going forward. It causes more arguments than even alignment.
The word "Edition" has a bad history of not being used consistently by different companies and marketing teams, because even at that level the people who made those decisions were fans who had their own opinions. The transitions between Basic D&D, AD&D, and AD&D2E, each had questionable origins. And "3.5" adopted computer jargon as a reflection of the times, which in hindsight poisoned the well in its own way. The ".5" naming convention is crap and deserves to be in the refuse pile of history. I also refuse to acknowledge any claim that the word "edition" has to be kept going forward. There is NO consistent definition that warrants keeping it. It is now divisive by nature. I'm fine with the language evolving, especially when the company who owns it, Wizards, is never going to give the game up, and they want it to be the eternal baseline going forward, with generational/anniversarial tweaks if needed. I like 5E and tweaks are ok with me.
That said, I also look at what else people are saying when they demand that they call it a new edition. I am not seeing a lot of good faith arguments. I see opposition to Wizards in general, and see some desire to call them liars. I get that the OGL debacle pissed people off. But Wizards capitulated in a way that opens D&D to the world (Creative Commons), that can't be undone. The boycott worked, even if it was only for a few weeks. I will let them work to get my trust back. I still reserve the right to hold their feet to the fire if someone in the company suggests a path that messes with the fandom again. If someone wants to hold a grudge, that is their prerogative, but I will work towards rebuilding the trust in the community as long as Wizards keeps trying to do the same. I am not saying people can't be angry. I was too. But I've already passed that point and have come back around to move forward. Of course, I'm enjoying the playtest. Others may not be.
Also, look at the people who are saying that it is not a big enough change for them to come back. It's essentially the same game, but if you read the playtests, they are tweaking for clarity, class identity/functionality, and real feedback from the last 10 years. I want that, and my playtests show that I can allow the 2 different Circle of the Moon Druids to play side by side and have fun. I treat those class variants as compatible as LevelUp claims their classes are as compatible with 5E.
.
And finally, again, it doesn't matter. In 2024, Wizards will be supporting D&D going forward, and will call it what they'll call it, and that is what new players are going to be buying. Anyone who calls it something else is being divisive and sowing confusion by nature of their argument, whether they want to admit it or not. People who want to stick with the 2014 books will be able to, and how they describe it to their new players will can either inclusionary ("Welcome new player! We prefer the 2014 books, so use our group's 2014 books, or the 2014 SRD, or the DM's shared legacy content in DDB"), or they can be divisive ("We don't play 6E, we're sticking with [Nth] Edition."). If that group allows for variant classes from LevelUp or Black Flag or other 3rd parties, but not the 2024 D&D books, they are pretty much showing their hands. And that is ok. But it is divisive.
We can all play the versions we want. People have their existing books and access to DMsGuild for old content they don't have physical copies of. Any infighting about which "Edition" is best is toxic, divisive, and unhelpful.
The word "Edition" has a bad history of not being used consistently by different companies and marketing teams, because even at that level the people who made those decisions were fans who had their own opinions. The transitions between Basic D&D, AD&D, and AD&D2E, each had questionable origins. And "3.5" adopted computer jargon as a reflection of the times, which in hindsight poisoned the well in its own way. The ".5" naming convention is crap and deserves to be in the refuse pile of history. I also refuse to acknowledge any claim that the word "edition" has to be kept going forward. There is NO consistent definition that warrants keeping it. It is now divisive by nature. I'm fine with the language evolving, especially when the company who owns it, Wizards, is never going to give the game up, and they want it to be the eternal baseline going forward, with generational/anniversarial tweaks if needed. I like 5E and tweaks are ok with me.
That said, I also look at what else people are saying when they demand that they call it a new edition. I am not seeing a lot of good faith arguments. I see opposition to Wizards in general, and see some desire to call them liars. I get that the OGL debacle pissed people off. But Wizards capitulated in a way that opens D&D to the world (Creative Commons), that can't be undone. The boycott worked, even if it was only for a few weeks. I will let them work to get my trust back. I still reserve the right to hold their feet to the fire if someone in the company suggests a path that messes with the fandom again. If someone wants to hold a grudge, that is their prerogative, but I will work towards rebuilding the trust in the community as long as Wizards keeps trying to do the same. I am not saying people can't be angry. I was too. But I've already passed that point and have come back around to move forward. Of course, I'm enjoying the playtest. Others may not be.
Also, look at the people who are saying that it is not a big enough change for them to come back. It's essentially the same game, but if you read the playtests, they are tweaking for clarity, class identity/functionality, and real feedback from the last 10 years. I want that, and my playtests show that I can allow the 2 different Circle of the Moon Druids to play side by side and have fun. I treat those class variants as compatible as LevelUp claims their classes are as compatible with 5E.
.
And finally, again, it doesn't matter. In 2024, Wizards will be supporting D&D going forward, and will call it what they'll call it, and that is what new players are going to be buying. Anyone who calls it something else is being divisive and sowing confusion by nature of their argument, whether they want to admit it or not. People who want to stick with the 2014 books will be able to, and how they describe it to their new players will can either inclusionary ("Welcome new player! We prefer the 2014 books, so use our group's 2014 books, or the 2014 SRD, or the DM's shared legacy content in DDB"), or they can be divisive ("We don't play 6E, we're sticking with [Nth] Edition."). If that group allows for variant classes from LevelUp or Black Flag or other 3rd parties, but not the 2024 D&D books, they are pretty much showing their hands. And that is ok. But it is divisive.
We can all play the versions we want. People have their existing books and access to DMsGuild for old content they don't have physical copies of. Any infighting about which "Edition" is best is toxic, divisive, and unhelpful.
Benjamin Olson
Hero
It is certainly a "new edition" in the sense the term is used for most things outside of certain rpgs, as in it is a revision of existing material.
It is probably not a "new edition" in the special meaning of the term used for certain rpgs where it actually means "sequel game".
I voted yes because I don't approve of the, to me, misleading way in which "edition" is used for rpgs. Just have sequels.
It is probably not a "new edition" in the special meaning of the term used for certain rpgs where it actually means "sequel game".
I voted yes because I don't approve of the, to me, misleading way in which "edition" is used for rpgs. Just have sequels.
Last edited:
Twiggly the Gnome
Legend
Yes, it's a new edition like 1e --> 2e and 3e --> "3.5" were, but not a new game like 2e --> 3e, 3e --> 4e, and 4e --> 5e were.
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
I love this comment with the fiber of a thousand white hot suns.
Benjamin Olson
Hero
Unless it's Star Wars, in which case most fans seem to only ever do both simultaneously.
Arilyn
Hero
Other rpgs don't have all this drama over editions. Call of Cthulhu, for example, has many editions, with only minor changes over the years. We really need to drop the 3 to 3.5 trauma. @Twiggly the Gnome is right, same game, new edition.
Mirrorrorrim
Hero
I agree it is the same game, but "edition" is too charged. It means something different to everyone, which means embracing it is saying different things to different people. By its very nature, the word has lost true meaning.
It's time for "edition" to die going forward.
Arilyn
Hero
Don't think this will help. If there are upset players over the 2024 "publication" it will be because they don't like the changes, or don't want to buy new books. WotC abandoning the word edition won't change that. And whatever WotC's plans, the community will settle on a widely used term, whether it's 5.5, or Anniversary edition or Revised or something else, in order to differentiate it from the original 5e.
And we'll fight over the merits of each one.
