D&D General There are no "Editions" of D&D

[Vaalingrade]

There has to have been a reprinting with edits at some point in the last 50 years.

And now we'll get a third way to measure 'editions'.

Or a fourth if WotC doesn't give up this fool's errand of trying to say there will be no more editions starting with 5.5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I mean, that's not what they said. They said it will be a new thing that is compatible with certain existing 5E products (adventures and supplements, specifically). Or actually even more to the point: existing adventures and supplements will be compatible with it. That doesn't mean it's just a spiffying of the rules. After all, for 8 years now we have been constantly told by certain 5E players that the game is completely compatible with earlier edition adventures and supplements, you just have to convert on the fly.

They literally have said that it is not a new “edition” (new game according to the OP usage), but a revision of the current ruleset.

It’s being playtested with existing rules/material except where noted. They have explicitly said it will be compatible with existing adventures and supplements. The playtest material thus far is compatible, except where they are throwing out some big change ideas to see if people like them (subclasses, spell lists) and even then it’s all compatible with existing supplements with extremely minor adjustment (give bards a feat when the new version says it gets its last feat being the biggest adjustment I’ve seen any need for).

 

[Parmandur]

Actually, if we are going to insist on a usage of the term from outside TTRPGs rather than using the term how it tends to be used in TTRPGs, this will be a new edition, rather than a new game.

It’s a revision, using the same system, compatible with secondary material from before the revision.

But if we apply that more rationstandard, then it's also not 6E, it becomes like 15th or 17th Edition, possibly. At the very least, these will be the 9th typical editions of books using the titles PHB and DMG.

Basically, the term "Edition" has been screwed up by D&D pretty bad, so doesn't convey useful information anymore.

OneD&D looks to allow the continued usage of my 5E collection, which is what matters to me.

 

[Clint_L]

OP is correct that in the context of D&D, the word edition has come to mean new versions of the game, incompatible with previous versions to the extent that players are required to buy new books. OP is manifestly incorrect to draw the conclusion that therefore OneD&D will also be a new version of the game, since OneD&D has not happened yet, so OP cannot prove that assertion. Furthermore, WotC has both recognized OP's first point and emphatically rejected the second, arguing that the old "editions" model is a terrible model.

I find it fascinating how unwilling folks are to even consider the possibility of a new paradigm. I shouldn't, because Thomas Kuhn showed that this is typical of paradigm shifts: most folks simply will not accept the new paradigm until it is a fait accompli (he was discussing scientific revolutions, but the pattern is similar in the arts). This isn't to say that WotC will succeed with their stated design goal of doing away with the old "editions" paradigm, but surely it is at least possible that they will.

WotC wants to keep the 5e chassis and continue to use it as the basis of D&D so that the game just keeps evolving slowly over time. They emphatically want to get rid of the old "editions" paradigm of essentially rebooting the game (and to a significant degree the player base) every 5-10 years. And they have excellent motivation to want to get rid of that paradigm: it creates a perennial boom/bust cycle of the sort that businesses hate. So why is it so hard to believe that they are serious and might succeed?

 

[Cordwainer Fish]

"An edition is what I point at when I say the word edition."

- Damon Knight, sort of

 

[delericho]

"An edition is what I point at when I say the word edition."

- Damon Knight, sort of

Pretty much. We need common terms in order to allow us to converse. Rightly or wrongly, the various versions of the games have been labelled "editions". So there it is.

 

[Stormonu]

I mean, that's not what they said. They said it will be a new thing that is compatible with certain existing 5E products (adventures and supplements, specifically). Or actually even more to the point: existing adventures and supplements will be compatible with it. That doesn't mean it's just a spiffying of the rules. After all, for 8 years now we have been constantly told by certain 5E players that the game is completely compatible with earlier edition adventures and supplements, you just have to convert on the fly.

Yeah, I believe that as much as 2E was just a "clean up" of 1E, and how 3.0 and 3.5 were compatible. The "change" document to convert your 3.0 material to 3.5 was pretty much a book in itself. Similar with the 4E release and essentials.

 

[Reynard]

Clarifying statement: I was primarily trying to say that the different "editions" of D&D are in fact each different games. This includes 3.5. You can't have different people at the table simultaneously and seamlessly using different edition PHBs. This will be the real test for OneD&D, as to whether it qualifies as a different "edition" than 5E.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So why is it so hard to believe that they are serious and might succeed?

Because the 5e we already have was supposed to be that, and then it didn't happen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

By that definition, each table's version of 5e is a different game due to the Calvinball nature of rulings not rules.