It wasn't until 3e that the editions really emphasized edition anyway (though B/X did make their distinction clear, the rest was all AD&D). And even then, there was little emphasis on 3.5 vs 3 (even though there were compatibility issues).
Personally I feel like it was 2nd edition that started it. I know it felt like it was front and center to me:It wasn't until 3e that the editions really emphasized edition anyway (though B/X did make their distinction clear, the rest was all AD&D). And even then, there was little emphasis on 3.5 vs 3 (even though there were compatibility issues).
More like everything up to the change of trade dress that accompanied the revised core books.Yes some things had the indicator but many did not.
Well, in one sense, it's a sympathetic-magic/denial way of avoiding edition warring, which went so badly for the last edition. It could be about unifying brand identity. It could signal an unwillingness to ever attempt to improve the game again (also understandable after the edition war). It could be to emphasize D&D as the same game as the fad years, in some sense, as 5e would point out that there were (at least) three editions between it and the historic fad.I'm curious about how this decision to downplay the fact that "this is the fifth edition of this game" was reached by the marketing wonks at WotC.
...another factor is that highlighting the fact a product has iterated like that is like saying "new & improved!"Personally I feel like it was 2nd edition that started it. I know it felt like it was front and center to me.