Given that
Fantasy Freaks and Gaming Geeks is among his writing credits, I think he is familiar w/ D&D. Out of curiosity, what in particular leads you to this conclusion?
Comments like the following:
Will Wizards of the Coast get D&D right this time?
Somebody who's been following D&D anytime since 2008 would know what an edition-war-y thing to say this is. It's possible the author knew that, but I have to question the judgement of any writer who begins his pitch with an insult to a portion of his readers.
Craftier than a mage casting a spell of Confusion, Wizards first teased us with a free PDF called
Basic Rules for Dungeons & Dragons D&D Starter Set, a rulebook and adventure package, complete with dice and pre-generated characters, that will remind many gamers of the quick-to-learn Basic boxed sets published throughout D&D’s history.
This sentence seems more like poor editing than a specific fault of the writer's, because it obviously refers to two separate products. (A PDF that includes dice, eh?) More the writer's fault: I don't think anybody who's been waiting for the release would refer to 5Basic as a teaser without elaborating. 5B is a full product.
At various times, this rebooted D&D has been called “D&D Next,” “5th Edition D&D” and “5.0.” Wizards of the Coast, D&D’s publisher, is now simply calling the game “Dungeons & Dragons.”
"D&D Next" was the playtest name; "5th Edition D&D" and "Dungeons & Dragons" are both official names. Nobody who followed 5E at all ever called it "5.0". Hell, I'm not convinced any non-casual fans who weren't trolling ever called 4E "4.0". Side note, if he followed D&D closely at all, he would've included "5E" in his list.
Next come three hefty hardcovers that hearken back to the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons core rulebooks.
This comment makes it sound like there haven't been Player's Handbooks, Monster Manuals, and Dungeon Master's Guides in twenty years.
...as well as an exclusive reveal of a new D&D class: the Warlock.
If he missed the fact that 4E also had a Player's Handbook, I shouldn't be surprised that he also missed the fact that there was a warlock in there six years ago too.
Other evidence is what he neglected to mention: the controversy that followed 4E, the ascent of Pathfinder and Old School Gaming, and 5E's two-year public playtest. Without mentioning those contexts, one could get the impression from this article that WotC just stubbled around the past few years before slapping this new thing together. Overall, my impression is that the author of this article is a lapsed, former, or casual D&D player who really hasn't followed D&D closely over the past decade.
. It's like saying "Some people will like country music and others will dislike it"
