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

[codo]

1) The comment was on the 'evergreen' concept.

2) 10 years between changes and it's yet another update that's backward compatible with the aging system with limited design space? Yes, that would be stagnation.

You mean the "stagnant" game that keeps growing and growing bringing in more and more players every year? Any other game company would literally kill to have that sort of "stagnation".

Sure, you might want changes and a new game, but you are not the only player. Ask the millions of new 5e players if they think 5e is stagnant.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Only the new ones though. The ones who haven't had the same thing for a decade.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Well good thing the IT model isn't the only example. Hasbro is a toy and board game company instead of an IT company. How about we look at their own model for evergreen products, and don't try to force the IT model onto it.

how is me responding to someone talking about IT forceing and IT model? did you see the context of my post? It was me saying that I DON'T know IT, even though I was responding to someone that does, and giveing a NON IT example.

Hasbro has been publishing evergreen games for literally decades. Monopoly, Risk, Battleship, Clue, etc. They have all been published for decades without version numbers, just small, steady changes.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

It is 100% obvious to me that giving it the "5.5" moniker, or otherwise creating a "natural break" as some people demand, will destroy the greater community's faith in backwards compatibility. Names matter. Historically, the crappy 3.5 designation created a clear break that invalidated previous books, and hurt 3rd party OGL products as well. Using a naming convention that creates a clear break or offramp is a poison pill for Wizards sales. We are already past the point where calling it "5.5" is an option. I created a thread about how people would react if Wizards changed their messaging going forward, and it's pretty apparent that it won't make Wizards detractors happy, and it would piss off fans for waffling and muddling the message. It will also provide ammo for a huge misinformation campaign by detractors.

I cannot think of one net positive reason to change the edition name. While the reasoning for the personal preferences are not invalid, the reasons are nitpicks in the greater scheme of things.

 

[Velderan]

That would be awesome! They should pick a subject, and name new editions after that subject ... big cats, places in Califnornia ... let's see.

They could get rid of alignment in the game, and just use it as a legacy to name editions?

2024 could become D&D: Chaotic Neutral.

Eh .... they could honor prior people that were in the D&D history, so for the 50th ...

D&D: Gygax.

Oh, no. That would be a hornet's nest I'm sure. Let's avoid people! How about ... cool D&D monsters?

D&D: Beholder

Still workshopping.....

D&D: Bard Edition?

ducks

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

It is 100% obvious to me that giving it the "5.5" moniker, or otherwise creating a "natural break" as some people demand, will destroy the greater community's faith in backwards compatibility. Names matter. Historically, the crappy 3.5 designation created a clear break that invalidated previous books, and hurt 3rd party OGL products as well. Using a naming convention that creates a clear break or offramp is a poison pill for Wizards sales. We are already past the point where calling it "5.5" is an option. I created a thread about how people would react if Wizards changed their messaging going forward, and it's pretty apparent that it won't make Wizards detractors happy, and it would piss off fans for waffling and muddling the message. It will also provide ammo for a huge misinformation campaign by detractors.

I cannot think of one net positive reason to change the edition name. While the reasoning for the personal preferences are not invalid, the reasons are nitpicks in the greater scheme of things.

that thread you created is full of people like me that it would work better for...
why is anyone bringing up an issue on a board about a playtest ASKING about issues a "Wizards detractor"

 

[Vaalingrade]

It is 100% obvious to me that giving it the "5.5" moniker, or otherwise creating a "natural break" as some people demand, will destroy the greater community's faith in backwards compatibility.

Good. Backward compatibility is just a albatross around the designers neck and just there to promise people that the product that is there to obsolete their books and make them buy new ones will certainly not do that, no sir; now please lookin in that other direction so I can finish this magic trick.

 

[OldSchoolGamerGirl]

Good. Backward compatibility is just a albatross around the designers neck and just there to promise people that the product that is there to obsolete their books and make them buy new ones will certainly not do that, no sir; now please lookin in that other direction so I can finish this magic trick.

they could put out "5e Anniversary Add on" book that is 10 years of 5e and 50 of D&D. They could have a bunch of new classes and the new optional species/background system and say "like tasha's this is all just optional" then even reprint the PHB with minor errata and art updates and that would be Back Compatible... that would be "still just 5e"

but putting out a new PHB with replacement rules for class race feat conditions and more is really a new version of the game

 

[codo]

how is me responding to someone talking about IT forceing and IT model? did you see the context of my post? It was me saying that I DON'T know IT, even though I was responding to someone that does, and giveing a NON IT example.

Ok, forcing may have been a bit strong. But it doesn't affect my point. You were looking at the Software model of "evergreen" and claiming that evergreen products never work. Computer programs and board games are completely different products in different industries. Instead of looking at software, why don't you look at Hasbro's history of selling evergreen board games? I think if you want to look at the success rate of evergreen products maybe look at the history of the company actually selling evergreen products, instead of unrelated products in an unrelated industry.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Show of hands: Who wants Ohio State Buckeyes Edition D&D -- at least three versions. Because that's where Evergreen got Monopoly at my local BnN