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

[Umbran]

In publishing, "edition" designates a particular editorial view an layout of a book.

Do you argue that in a specific domain, the word CANNOT have another, slightly different, meaning?

If not, then your argument is "You should all stick with my definition, despite decades of other use, because... something." That's not terribly persuasive.

 

[Vaalingrade]

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

Because that's neither how you make money nor progress in design.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I suspect the big issue there is going to come down to how you define "seamless."

Because, from what we've seen, there will almost surely be a relatively short list of errata for using 5e PHB content with One D&D content, when it hits its final published form. Backgrounds, for example, are one of the bigger shifts we've seen thus far. But the shift isn't some massive world-upheaval kind of thing. Some changes to where stats come from and getting a feat. That's a significant shift, but I can absolutely see people arguing that the shift is "seamless" because it doesn't require any mechanics that don't exist in the 5e PHB, just providing more of those mechanics than was previously available.

So...what does "simultaneously and seamlessly" mean?

 

[Reynard]

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

I mean, maybe if the ruling are so different as to be house rules that significantly change the way the game is played.

 

[Reynard]

Do you argue that in a specific domain, the word CANNOT have another, slightly different, meaning?

If not, then your argument is "You should all stick with my definition, despite decades of other use, because... something." That's not terribly persuasive.

Probably don't tell another poster what they mean and instead ask for clarification. Or, you know, keep reading.

 

[Umbran]

Probably don't tell another poster what they mean and instead ask for clarification.

Funny. The first sentence of my post is a question.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Similar with the 4E release and essentials.

That is weird, we ran essentials and base 4e at the same table and never used a conversion guide. I didn’t even know there was one. What could you possibly need to convert?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Probably don't tell another poster what they mean and instead ask for clarification. Or, you know, keep reading.

Didn’t he ask a question in the part you quoted?

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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

Why do think it didn’t happen? This is exactly what is happening. This is how you modify 5e and keep it evergreen. IMO, 1D&D is them delivering on that promise of 5e being the end of editions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

They never said 6e's core books would be compatible with the 2014 core books, just adventures and supplements (and that second claim is  very salty to me). That alone counts against any claim that it's not a new edition.