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

[Emberashh]

Even if it did matter, are you saying they were wrong when 5e was launched?

The issue with the logic is that its assumptive and puts a deliberate blinder onto the idea that someone who isn't already experience is going to be confronted with old material and will have to either deny their players the material or learn to juggle two different editions at once.

And all because WOTC is telling people they can use all the same material together. They aren't just speaking to DMs, they are telling players this.

to make it easier for new players?

Its easier for new players to be forced into a situation where they have to deny their players wants or juggle a broken edition with a, presumably, not broken edition?

This is why I noted that this is the same logic. You're ignoring the possibility that new players are going to be affected by this.

WOTC at least had the excuse that they couldn't have predicted their apology to 3E and Pathfinder players would end up being so popular; they had a reason to not expect a lot of new DMs or even players.

I don't know what your excuse is.

 

[SkidAce]

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.

I agree, if I was in their shoes there would be no mention ANYWHERE of this being an edition change. Smartest thing they can do.

For me it meets the criteria of an edition change, but I'm not gonna go ballistic about it because I understand their motivations.

 

[mamba]

Yeah, but this doesn't really make the argument for being "evergreen". You can literally make the same argument for a new edition or half-edition: people will buy the new books or not move on. The only thing is that you can stop people from mixing things and can properly balance things if you push to a new edition/version, rather than potentially having two versions of a bunch of different things out there for players to use.

it also stops interchangeability of adventures. With 5e and 1D&D you can use adventures of either version with either core. With a jump from 3e to 4e you cannot - and if there is no jump and all you do is change the label to 5.5 while 1D&D otherwise stays the same, then that is horrible marketing.

 

[codo]

The issue with the logic is that its assumptive and puts a deliberate blinder onto the idea that someone who isn't already experience is going to be confronted with old material and will have to either deny their players the material or learn to juggle two different editions at once.

And all because WOTC is telling people they can use all the same material together. They aren't just speaking to DMs, they are telling players this.



Its easier for new players to be forced into a situation where they have to deny their players wants or juggle a broken edition with a, presumably, not broken edition?

This is why I noted that this is the same logic. You're ignoring the possibility that new players are going to be affected by this.

WOTC at least had the excuse that they couldn't have predicted their apology to 3E and Pathfinder players would end up being so popular; they had a reason to not expect a lot of new DMs or even players.

I don't know what your excuse is.

Maybe I just have a higher opinion on the abilities of D&D players to handle change, and think the changes are a lot less disruptive than you do. I really don't see the changes as much more than the revised ranger in Tasha's. 5e already has 2 different versions of the ranger, and it doesn't seem to cause any real problems. At most any questions can be cleared up with a 5 minute conversation. I just don't see the 1D&D changes as much more than that.

 

[Emberashh]

Maybe I just have a higher opinion on the abilities of D&D players to handle change, and think the changes are a lot less disruptive than you do.

See the funny thing is, Im not commenting on the abilities of DND players at all.

Thats something you're projecting onto the argument, which is strictly about an unforced burden that doesn't need to foisted on people.

To make another analogy, it is the easiest thing in the world to clean yourself if someone gets dirt on you. That doesn't mean that someone needs to or should be putting dirt on you.

 

[mamba]

Yes yes we know you're really defensive over all this.

I am just pointing out that what you have written presumes that you turn out correct, which as far as I can tell is not actually that likely. We will all know more in two years, I am not sure the same 10 won’t still complain about the same things regardless of what happens however

 

[Emberashh]

I am just pointing out that what you have written presumes that you turn out correct, which as far as I can tell is not actually that likely. We will all know more in two years, I am not sure the same 10 won’t still complain about the same things regardless of what happens however

nothing meaningfully changes to address certain peoples concerns

"why wont they stop being concerned??? Better denigrate their entire position by dismissing it as pointless complaints!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

D&D isnt a video game, nor any sort of computer software program.

Which neatly sidesteps any actual part of the argument. Oh well. I tried.

Not getting what you want is not remotely an acceptable reason to accuse someone of anything.

This, at least, I can agree with in the abstract. It breaks down for more specific cases (e.g. a child not getting the love and support of their parents does actually have reason to accuse), but as a general rule, all else being equal, "I didn't get what I wanted" with no further context, provides no justification for accusations.

Of course, one can rebut that WotC has made obligations of various sorts, especially in the way they describe and explain their work, which means the critical "all else being equal" clause may not hold true.

 

[codo]

See the funny thing is, Im not commenting on the abilities of DND players at all.

Well I am, That was the main thrust of my argument. I don't need to just discuss what you want.

Thats something you're projecting onto the argument, which is strictly about an unforced burden that doesn't need to foisted on people.

To make another analogy, it is the easiest thing in the world to clean yourself if someone gets dirt on you. That doesn't mean that someone needs to or should be putting dirt on you.

I get you point, I just disagree with it. You think there is no benefit to WotC's evergreen model, only downside. I see huge benefits with making the game evergreen. If they call there new game 5.5 or 6e, that signals it is a hard break and the new books are not compatible with the old. It basically ensures that they will split the player base. By making there new game backwards compatible with the old, they can minimized the split, and still sell books to both sides. If you want to stick with 5e, you can, and still buy new adventures to use. If you switch to 1D&D you can still use your old books and adventures in the new game. It looks like a win-win to me.

 

[mamba]

But no, I guess other people know my feelings and motivations better than me.

because me saying ‘I am not sure why you care’ is the same as me telling you how you feel about things