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

[mamba]

So, you don't expect a new book with an updated Artificer to appear? You're sure those existing subclasses won't be republished again, with modest, appropriate changes to match the new level format?

I do, they essentially already said so

Maybe the slow pace of 5e publishing will remain the same, but frankly I completely expect the same arc as the 3.5 years, where the outdated material is slowly replaced with new versions, and conversion guides slowly fade into obscurity as everyone expects you to update to the 2024 (or will it be 2025, if it comes out a year later?) version of the Banneret.

This is exactly the same thing, admittedly slightly better handled and certainly better marketed. There's some difference in scope, but no real difference in kind.

you can still play the old adventures without changes, and if you really wanted to, you could stick with 5e and still use the new material WotC publishes outside of the core books

Whether you use the revised core books is a choice, not doing so is not leaving you behind

 

[Azzy]

The evergreen idea was the real stupid move.

You simply should not just promise RPG fans that they're game is going to be left to stagnate and wither on the vine. You just slowly ramp down your innovation and editing over time and never acknowledge you're doing it, like Shadowrun.

I'm sorry, but that post was ridiculous and eyeroll-inducing.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

So, you don't expect a new book with an updated Artificer to appear? You're sure those existing subclasses won't be republished again, with modest, appropriate changes to match the new level format? Maybe the slow pace of 5e publishing will remain the same, but frankly I completely expect the same arc as the 3.5 years, where the outdated material is slowly replaced with new versions, and conversion guides slowly fade into obscurity as everyone expects you to update to the 2024 (or will it be 2025, if it comes out a year later?) version of the Banneret.

This is exactly the same thing, admittedly slightly better handled and certainly better marketed. There's some difference in scope, but no real difference in kind.

I'd be ok if some older non-PH subclasses and spells (like SCAG's Banneret, and the EEPC elemental spell options) made their way into the 2024 book, but if I would hazard a guess, I would think that any book "reprints" will come much later, if at all. I don't think they'll touch Xanathar's or Tasha's options soon unless they reeeeally think something deserves a spot in the PH. In fact, I hope they don't include any full subclass options from those two books. Those options are already playable and I want more stuff. If they do update some of the older content that was not included in Tasha's or Xanathar's, they will likely determine desire and demand, playtest them, then maybe they release them in another Famous Person's Anthology of Options which also has even more new content. But that still wont be reprinting 7 different 3.5 prestige class books to replace the 5 prestige class guidebooks of 3E. And the time between redesigns will be longer.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm sorry, but that post was ridiculous and eyeroll-inducing.

Mod Note:

How does posting something like this forward the conversation? How does this conform to ENWorld’s rules about civility?

It doesn’t.

It’s fine to disagree with someone’s posts; it’s not to be disagreeable when doing so.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

They can call it a mistake. By then they should be releasing 6e. 5e/5.5e will be very stale a that point.

 

[Maxperson]

I really don't think that most newer members that started with 5e even know about 3.5e.

And yet it's very unlikely that even 1% would be confused by 5.5e. I mean, you have 5e and then a new version comes out and is 5.5e. People know that 5.5 is greater than 5 and less than 6. Even people who have never heard of 3.5e are not going to be confused even a little bit.

There are arguments for and against adding the .5, but this one and the one where you argue that an RPG isn't a computer are not good ones. My Shark(robot that cleans my floors) is not a shark, but has the same name. My vacuum isn't the vacuum of space, yet has the same name. Hollywood stars are not stars from space, yet are called stars. And on and on. It doesn't matter if RPGs are not computer programs as far as a .5 is concerned.

 

[Azzy]

And yet it's very unlikely that even 1% would be confused by 5.5e. I mean, you have 5e and then a new version comes out and is 5.5e. People know that 5.5 is greater than 5 and less than 6. Even people who have never heard of 3.5e are not going to be confused even a little bit.

There are arguments for and against adding the .5, but this one and the one where you argue that an RPG isn't a computer are not good ones. My Shark(robot that cleans my floors) is not a shark, but has the same name. My vacuum isn't the vacuum of space, yet has the same name. Hollywood stars are not stars from space, yet are called stars. And on and on. It doesn't matter if RPGs are not computer programs as far as a .5 is concerned.

If we're going to use software as inspiration, I want it to be called D&D Snow Leopard.

On a more serious note, a term unlikely to confuse people is a really low bar (but then, when WotC labeled their books "PHB II" and "DMG II" it apparently confused people). Like I said, though, it's not consistent with the vast majority of the RPG sphere. It doesn't add anything. And then there's the whole if you're iterating the same chassis, why are you starting in the middle of editions? that x.5e conveys. Instead, going with x.1e would be a better place to start if you want to go with version numbers.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's also schlocky at best, dishonest at worst.

Where is the dishonesty coming from? I just don't get it.

I mean, from WoTC's stated goal about fifth edition being evergreen it is incredibly stupid, because it locks them in. Once you have 5.5 then you are going to end up either being forced into another 0.5 jump, or you go 5.6 for the next, or worse, the 5.5.5 model someone put earlier.

It makes far more sense to avoid that sort of numbering system, so that you can continue updating the rules over the decades without making a nightmare for yourself.

I don't believe they lied, myself. I believe that they were making either foolishly optimistic statements, or simply not considering the actual requirements people would hold them to for the term "evergreen."

IOW: I think they already made an incredibly stupid move: trying to pass off 5e as evergreen. I'm sure they were sincere. I just think they were wrong. I'm certain they did not know better; I just believe they should have known better.

How does the 2024 update count as stagnation? If they do another backwards compatible update in another 10 years, is it still stagnate?

Given my...issues...with 5e, yeah, I do kind of feel that it is stagnant. There were bits and pieces of genuinely bold, innovative, good design back in D&D Next (e.g. the playtest Sorcerer and Warlock.) They got strangled in the cradle. I haven't seen any signs that "One D&D" is changing any of that--if anything, they're moving even more flat and uniform.

And yes, if they tried to build something that was fully "backwards-compatible" with content developed 20 years before--chained to design concepts that are literally an entire generation old at that point--I would consider it quite stagnant, yes. Consider that Morrowind, for example, launched in fall 2002. Can you imagine Bethesda trying to sell an expansion pack for Morrowind 20 years after its release, merely pushing the boundaries of the engine it had at the time rather than developing anything truly new? It would go over like a lead balloon. Or any other major releases around that time: Knights of the Old Republic, the original Call of Duty (I shudder to think of the criticism levied by fans if any company tried to sell expansions for the oldest of old-school CoD today!), Grand Theft Auto III, World of Warcraft, etc. Now, of course, video games are not 1:1 identical with tabletop games, players bring a lot more to the table. But twenty years is enough time for people to start to sour on something, even if it was deeply beloved--that's exactly what happened with 3/3.5/PF1e.

"Evergreen" content can--theoretically--be made to work in some contexts. By and large, however, it's a pipe dream. Promises of eternally evergreen environments, be they code, rulebooks, or whatever else, just don't pan out over time.

After all, as Bill Gates never actually said, "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I don't really care what they label the upcoming version of the core rulebooks. "5.5", "5e revised", "Anniversary edition", "D&D electric boogalloo", it's all good.

What I do care about is that they do apply an appropriate label, instead of pretending that it's exactly the same game as the 2014 books, except when it's not.

That said, I do kinda like "5.5", because it's short.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't really care what they label the upcoming version of the core rulebooks. "5.5", "5e revised", "Anniversary edition", "D&D electric boogalloo", it's all good.

What I do care about is that they do apply an appropriate label, instead of pretending that it's exactly the same game as the 2014 books, except when it's not.

That said, I do kinda like "5.5", because it's short.

Personally, I was fond of "5.50(e/r)," as in, "D&D 5th edition, 50th anniversary revision." It even rolls off the tongue, "five-fifty."