D&D (2024) WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."

[dave2008]

This isn’t errata either. It is whole sale changes of rules and concepts.

Well they have proposed some changes in the playtest (more than I was expecting actually), but they haven't actually made any changes yet.

I also don't necessarily agree that the playtest material represents "whole sale changes." Would you care to elaborate?

 

[dave2008]

Don't forget the nearby parallel universe of Basic D&D, and it's Editions!

Yes, I was staying out of those waters because that whole situation was just odd.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If WOTC broke down and called it 6E, I think that would help deskunkifying the term "edition" in regards to D&D and would make future transitions much easier in the future if they keep the compatability to about the level they pitched in the OneD&D introduction video.

I don't think there's anything that can "deskunkify" the term "edition". It's a bad term and has been for a while. And, from what I've seen, most of the people insisting that this is an edition change are the ones that don't like the minor updates. I don't think explicitly calling it a new edition would help win any of those people over or help in the future at all.

 

[Jahydin]

Most of the frustration comes from a new edition that completely devalues product you already own.

Funny, cause the worse offenders are the "editions" that claim to be fully compatible. Not only do they devalue the older core books dramatically (no one wants the worse version of similar rulesets), but they also hardly seem necessary at the same time since they're more or less just houserules.

 

[MockingBird]

Most of the frustration comes from a new edition that completely devalues product you already own.

Funny, cause the worse offenders are the "editions" that claim to be fully compatible. Not only do they devalue the older core books dramatically (no one wants the worse version of similar rulesets), but they also hardly seem necessary at the same time since they're more or less just houserules.

Interesting take, care to divulge any further?

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, maybe even 16. Their mainpo8jt in obfuscation here is pretty plainly tk make people comfortable that they can keep playing with what they have and to minimize any threat of edition warring or splitting the fanbase. It's WotC own fault for setting the expectation of an "edition" being an Earth shattering difference.

You know, that might work if they called it 16e. Everyone would do a triple take at first. And I think editions would become nearly meaningless thereafter.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

C'mon everyone! It's going to be branded as 50th Anniversary Dungeons & Dragons (and everyone knows it!).

Let's just get used to calling it 50th already and be done with this "is it or isn't it an edition". It both is and isn't depending on what you think the word edition means and how much you think you should have to work to achieve backwards compatibility.

Either way, it will be 50th An. D&D. Nothing will stop that.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

In a more sensible world OneD&D would be called the second edition of whatever unique name 5e D&D would go by (ie: D&D Next 2nd Edition). It is clearly an updated edition to the unique game that is 5e D&D.

But yes, given the way the word "edition" has been used with D&D to mean "new sequel game", it's best for it just to be buried until they come out with another completely incompatible sequel game.

 

[Shiroiken]

If they use the word edition, it will almost certainly be just "Anniversary Edition." They might go with Revised Dungeon & Dragons, but I find that unlikely.

"6E" wouldn't be fully honest, either, since there have been more than 6 Editions of D&D already. OneD&D is still less egregious than 3.5 pretending to be errata.

It really comes down to how you define an edition. We are currently playing the 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. You have: OD&D, BECMI, 3E, 4E, and now 5E, as technically Advanced Dungeons & Dragons was a different game. If you want to break things down by major rule changes across all Dungeons & Dragons, it gets messy.

• OD&D: 1-4 versions
  • At least Greyhawk made significant changes, and I believe the other supplements might have as well
• 1E AD&D: 2 versions
  • Unearthed Arcana made changes enough to be considered 1.5E
• BECMI: 2-6 versions
  • Each set made significant changes, but arguably they were extensions of the rules like OD&D had. The Rules Compendium combined them all, which I'd consider a half edition at least
• 2E AD&D: 2 versions
  • The revised version would have been a half edition
• 3E : 2 versions
  • Everyone knows the half edition
• 4E: 2 versions
  • The Essentials set was a half edition change
• 5E: 1 version (plus probably 1 in 2024)

So at a minimum we've had 12 major rule systems, and at most 19 versions. The fact that there's some compatibility might be irrelevant, since a lot of material from BECMI, 1E, and 2E was usable in any of these editions.

 

[Jahydin]

Interesting take, care to divulge any further?

Oh, just my observation of 3.5, and 4.Essentials. Both were certainly better written games that were backwards compatible with their core systems, but both caused confusion and frustration.

3.5 because the changes could have been released as free errata. Having to buy 3 new core books made a lot people angry, not to mention it made their 3.0 books drop in value instantly. And even though it was backwards compatible, customers still avoided 3.0 product, which caused problems for store owners. In hindsight, 3.5 probably caused more problems then it did good.

4.Essentials tried to avoid that by releasing new core books that were in "addition" to the 4E core. Once people got to looking at them though, it was pretty obvious this was 4.5 due to better designed classes and better monster math. This caused some confusion on what to do with them. Ditch the old books and just play this "edition"? Use both for characters, but use the updated Monster Manual? Again, it probably would have been better to not release them at all.

When a new edition comes out, I think it's important that it be obvious why a new edition is needed. Like with Pathfinder, in no way does the new edition devalue my 1st edition books because the systems are so different. No hurt feelings.

With "One", if the changes are going to be minor and the only reason to purchase it is to be let into the Beyond playground, I think there is going to be a lot of unhappy people.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head...