D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Dire Bare]

Thank you for restating my point with a bit easier language.

Apparently not.

What I pulled from your post is that you feel WotC is currently competing with itself, like back in the TSR days. My rebuttal was that WotC is NOT currently competing with themselves.

If I misunderstood your post, or if I was unclear myself, I apologize.

 

[Parmandur]

To be fair to WotC, D&D's use of "edition" to refer to a new version of the game predates WotC's acquisition of the game.

True,bit they made it worse very quickly by muddling the waters.

 

[Parmandur]

I'm extremely skeptical of the claims of backwards compatibility. IIRC D&D Next promised the same that it would be backwards compatible with prior editions. That didn't happen. I have a feeling it will play out something like this, you could play 1D&D with 5E, but with all the changes in terminology and lineage and class features, it'd probably be a PITA to mix the two, so most people will probably just play one or the other, but WotC will still be able to say they delivered on their promise.

This skepticism would have made sense last August, when they first announced the revision, but by now we have their rules proposals in hand, and people are already mixing and matching without an issue. That's only going to get easier as theybpolish things.

 

[Dire Bare]

Yes I recall this as well, and that's when they declared that moving forward with the transition from 2E to just "Dungeons & Dragons" (3.0) and that's the way it was going to stay. Well as you pointed out in your post, we know this didn't happen.

We have different memories of that time.

Ryan Dancey's critique of TSR's business practices did call out the multiple competing product lines for the various campaign settings. It did not deal with edition changes from original D&D to advanced then to 2E. And at no point did WotC claim that 3E would be evergreen and the final edition.

I'm extremely skeptical of the claims of backwards compatibility. IIRC D&D Next promised the same that it would be backwards compatible with prior editions. That didn't happen. I have a feeling it will play out something like this, you could play 1D&D with 5E, but with all the changes in terminology and lineage and class features, it'd probably be a PITA to mix the two, so most people will probably just play one or the other, but WotC will still be able to say they delivered on their promise.

Again, we have different memories.

WotC never claimed that 5E, or D&D Next, would be backwards compatible with prior editions of the game. They did claim that they were taking the best parts of earlier editions to craft the new game, but that is something different than "compatibility".

Being skeptical of how compatible D&D 5E 2024 will be with D&D 5E 2014 would be reasonable . . . . if we hadn't already seen playtests that clearly show the new version of the game is the same game and not a new edition (in the sense the community uses the word "edition").

 

[MoonSong]

I've said this elsewhere, but right now WotC/Hasbro need to keep sales of the 2014 books as high as they can, and they need sales of the books printing before 2024 to stay high. They need to clear that backstock, and they have to maintain consumer confidence. That's why there have been so many sales on the core books. If people want backup copies of the 2014 5e books, keep your eyes out for sales over the next couple of years. I've already seen a sale of $50 for the 5e core gift set on Amazon (PHB + MM + DMG + screen). Even now it's under $80.

I'm not sure. If the bools I have die out on me, I'll just make my own to replace them. Or buy one of the many alternatives. However I'll be happy to get the now deprecated supppements once they hit a low point. (I'm missing a few books I want, but I can wait for them to reach a nice price point) The new books will have to win me over though. At this point I'd rather go for the new PF pocket books. Or even shell out for a A5e hard copy.

 

[deganawida]

Apparently not.

What I pulled from your post is that you feel WotC is currently competing with itself, like back in the TSR days. My rebuttal was that WotC is NOT currently competing with themselves.

If I misunderstood your post, or if I was unclear myself, I apologize.

No worries. My belief is that they haven't maintained a consistent product vision over the last 20 years, and the 2024 edition confusion is the most recent manifestation of that. It's like when a car changes from a coupe, to sedan, to station wagon, and yet has the same model name.

As for whether or not it will be good, I do not have a dog in the fight. I've enjoyed previous editions, but 5th left me cold. I have other games to keep me entertained for now, and if they make a product I'm interested or a new version of the game in a few years, I'll check it out and give it a fair shake.

 

[Parmandur]

No worries. My belief is that they haven't maintained a consistent product vision over the last 20 years, and the 2024 edition confusion is the most recent manifestation of that. It's like when a car changes from a coupe, to sedan, to station wagon, and yet has the same model name.

As for whether or not it will be good, I do not have a dog in the fight. I've enjoyed previous editions, but 5th left me cold. I have other games to keep me entertained for now, and if they make a product I'm interested or a new version of the game in a few years, I'll check it out and give it a fair shake.

WotC has definitely not maintained a consistent visuon for 20 years, because they kept failing woth their product lines (hence the constant firings in the 3.x and 4E eras as things went sideways). They have maintained a consistent product vision for 9 years, however, and all signs are that is moving forwards into the next decade.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Yeah. Totally confusing. D&D used to be identified by the colour of the box it came with.

White box.
Red box.

Why is it too difficult to just call it 2024 version. Or identify it by the cover again?

And regarding the catrips you get with your pact... a bit confusing, but it is a playtest. Call them pact cantrips or make most of them class features and its good. Not set in stone.
Trying to use a 2014 class and play dumb, sorry confused to exploit something is not a new trick.

Agreed. Also, there is historical precedent regarding using covers to differentiate the same book within the same edition.

In 1989, TSR printed the D&D 2nd Ed. Players Handbook with the mounted warriors on the cover. In 1995, just six years later, D&D 2nd Edition revised their Core Three books to have completely different formatting and art. They are often called the Black Books. The cover of the PH had the axe-wielding barbarian crashing through a dungeon door.

The page numbers for where to find things changed, but it was still the same game.

A 2024 PH with a different cover, and lots more diverse art and wider design options to cover more diverse character builds... sounds like a lovely, compatible 5E enhancement to me!

 

[Velderan]

That had to do more with the Chinese market and their adversion to number 9. Same case with windows and galaxy s skipping that number.

I had never heard this, but yeah, a quick Google search says the number 9 is associated with eternity and the emperor, as well as being cantonese slang for penis so probably not good to use for a product name. lol

 

[Parmandur]

Agreed. Also, there is historical precedent regarding using covers to differentiate the same book within the same edition.

In 1989, TSR printed the D&D 2nd Ed. Players Handbook with the mounted warriors on the cover. In 1995, just six years later, D&D 2nd Edition revised their Core Three books to have completely different formatting and art. They are often called the Black Books. The cover of the PH had the axe-wielding barbarian crashing through a dungeon door.

The page numbers for where to find things changed, but it was still the same game.

A 2024 PH with a different cover, and lots more diverse art and wider design options to cover more diverse character builds... sounds like a lovely, compatible 5E enhancement to me!

The '95 books were the fourth set of ISBNs for AD&D, which in general publishing parlance would make that the fourth edition, just as the '89 books were the third edition (!). 3E was fifth edition, 3.5 was sixth edition, 4E was the seventh edition, and 2014 was the eight edition. And thar doesn't even account for OD&D or the multiple iterations of BD&D!