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

[Azzy]

If it's the kind of change to Editions that's more than that, that changes the underlying rules of how you play the game, it makes me more likely to buy the new books because I'd need them to learn to play the game.

As someone who stuck to 3.5e after 4e was published, if the Anniversary edition was an entire new rule set, I would just stick to 5e. As it is, I'm on the fence on whether I buy into the revised edition. I want an iteration of the current rules not a complete new game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As someone who stuck to 3.5e after 4e was published, if the Anniversary edition was an entire new rule set, I would just stick to 5e. As it is, I'm on the fence on whether I buy into the revised edition. I want an iteration of the current rules not a complete new game.

What is about the current rules that you don't like? What do you want WotC to change?

 

[Azzy]

What is about the current rules that you don't like? What do you want WotC to change?

A horde of nitpicks more than anything. That's why I want a revision instead of a complete new game. I also look forward to revisions of some of the classes (especially the Fighter), more feats, etc.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The x.5e convention was a stupid one that's only been used once in D&D's publishing lifetime. 3.5e was a revised 3e. This will be a revised 5e.

Why is it stupid?

It quickly and cleanly communicates that 3e and 3.5e are fundamentally the same game, with iterative updates. Just like how the community has taken to calling "blending 3e, revised or not, and Pathfinder" by the term "3.PF," recognizing that PF1e was ultimately just very extensive tweaking, not a wholly new game. (And part of what made me willing to actually hear out the devs on PF2e was that they admitted that mere tweaking cannot fix the fundamental flaws of thr underlying 3rd edition ruleset.)

Part of the reason this works so well is that it works exactly like something many end users are very familiar with: software version numbers. Windows 10 is different from Windows 11. But Windows 3.1 is the same operating system environment as Windows 3.0 was, it just has some more features under the hood. FFXIV patch 6.4, which just recently came out, is fundamentally the same game as 6.0, but differs from 5.0-5.5 (the Shadowbringers expansion) because the classes ("jobs") no longer work the same way. If you played during ShB, but waited until now to pick up Endwalker (6.0-6.4 thus far, 6.5 coming late this year), you'll need to relearn some things. Much will still be familiar, but much has also changed.


So...what is so horrible and (as someone else said) "deceptive" about the X.5e label? It follows models from other, well-known things, is quick and clear, and emphasizes that the changes, while important, do not actually make a break with the fundamentals of the game being "revised."

 

[codo]

Why is it stupid?

It quickly and cleanly communicates that 3e and 3.5e are fundamentally the same game, with iterative updates. Just like how the community has taken to calling "blending 3e, revised or not, and Pathfinder" by the term "3.PF," recognizing that PF1e was ultimately just very extensive tweaking, not a wholly new game. (And part of what made me willing to actually hear out the devs on PF2e was that they admitted that mere tweaking cannot fix the fundamental flaws of thr underlying 3rd edition ruleset.)

Part of the reason this works so well is that it works exactly like something many end users are very familiar with: software version numbers. Windows 10 is different from Windows 11. But Windows 3.1 is the same operating system environment as Windows 3.0 was, it just has some more features under the hood. FFXIV patch 6.4, which just recently came out, is fundamentally the same game as 6.0, but differs from 5.0-5.5 (the Shadowbringers expansion) because the classes ("jobs") no longer work the same way. If you played during ShB, but waited until now to pick up Endwalker (6.0-6.4 thus far, 6.5 coming late this year), you'll need to relearn some things. Much will still be familiar, but much has also changed.


So...what is so horrible and (as someone else said) "deceptive" about the X.5e label? It follows models from other, well-known things, is quick and clear, and emphasizes that the changes, while important, do not actually make a break with the fundamentals of the game being "revised.

There is a huge difference in how WotC used it in 3.5 and how it is commonly understood and used in the software industry. It's that WotC chose to start with 3.5 instead of 3.1 like it should be if you want to indicate an iterative change. 3.5 is 3 and a half. It indicates that should be half way between 3e and 4e.

IF you call a game X.5 because it is just a slight revision to game X, what do you call it if you want to do a second revision later?

 

[Azzy]

Why is it stupid?

Because RPGs are not computer software. Also, your example of Windows ignores that Windows hasn't consistently used version numbers—Win95, Win98 (an iteration of Win95), Vista, NT, Millennium, XP. It isn't even used by the majority of the rest of the RPG industry (which instead uses whole numbers even for minor changes, c.f., . CoC, amongst others). It's also schlocky at best, dishonest at worst.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because RPGs are not computer software. Also, your example of Windows ignores that Windows hasn't consistently used version numbers—Win95, Win98 (an iteration of Win95), Vista, NT, Millennium, XP. It isn't even used by the majority of the rest of the RPG industry (which instead uses whole numbers even for minor changes, c.f., . CoC, amongst others). It's also schlocky at best, dishonest at worst.

I don't know. It's short, easy to understand, and its been a common parlance in the community for the last 20 years.

 

[Azzy]

I don't know. It's short, easy to understand, and its been a common parlance in the community for the last 20 years.

Despite the fact that it's been used all of once and isn't common at all outside the D&D community that was playing D&D at the time it was used.

Think of the method as comparable to Windows 95/98 (if you want the software route)—we'll have D&D14 and D&D24.

 

[codo]

I don't know. It's short, easy to understand, and its been a common parlance in the community for the last 20 years.

I am going to ask again, If they do call it 5.5, and in a few years they decide to release another revised 5e, what can they call it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Despite the fact that it's been used all of once and isn't common at all outside the D&D community that was playing D&D at the time it was used.

This is about the D&D community, and I expect even the newer members of it know what is being said. I've never heard anyone express confusion about it.