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

[Parmandur]

D&D: Bard Edition?

ducks

Oops: All Bards

 

[mamba]

In a hobby where certain people are called rules lawyers, it is nothing but hilarious to suggest things will be deprecated organically.

they will, not everywhere and not all at once, but they will. 5e books will no longer be printed, that is as deprecated as WotC has control over, short of releasing an incompatible edition, which is that last thing they want to do

And there will be zero continuity from table to table to WOTC on what all of those things are.

so what, tables have been playing differently for 50 years now

It will be a mess, and it will not work the way they want them to, unless they take time and actually revise 5e relative to itself before adding on the new with OneDND.

what do you think WotC wants from 1D&D?

 

[Parmandur]

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.

I think Crawfod is quite honest I the original articke: the D&D'24 is a new edition in normal publishing parlance, but not a total disjuncture with the current ruleset the way WotC has misused the term un the past.

 

[codo]

But you do need to stop framing such things as though you're responding to things I said.

If Im talking about apples you don't get to act like I'm in the wrong for questioning why you started in on oranges.



No you don't get my point at all actually, as Im not arguing against the idea of an evergreen game. Thats how a lot of games work afterall.

What Im arguing against is the implementation, and the unforced error of trying to mix editions.

If you're going to go evergreen, start clean. Don't bolt on an entirely separate game, that you're never going to update separately from the new game, for no reason at all.

I said it earlier in this topic, but deprecation is a necessary part of maintaining a continually developed game.

They did a clean start with the evergreen model. 5e was designed from the start to be evergreen. They announced that before 5e was even released. I am not sure how they could even have an evergreen edition without having to "mix editions". There will be people who consider any revision to the rules a new "edition". I don't know how you get around that, unless you never update the rules.

I am just curious, would you define 1d&d to be a new edition? Because WotC (and I), don't consider it one. If you do, I think we may be using different definitions of evergreen.

 

[Parmandur]

They did a clean start with the evergreen model. 5e was designed from the start to be evergreen. They announced that before 5e was even released. I am not sure how they could even have an evergreen edition without having to "mix editions". There will be people who consider any revision to the rules a new "edition". I don't know how you get around that, unless you never update the rules.

I am just curious, would you define 1d&d to be a new edition? Because WotC (and I), don't consider it one. If you do, I think we may be using different definitions of evergreen.

The test is particularly asking people to mix and match, so clearly using the new revisions alongside the originals is something that WotC is factoring into their design and balance.

 

[codo]

I think Crawfod is quite honest I the original articke: the D&D'24 is a new edition in normal publishing parlance, but not a total disjuncture with the current ruleset the way WotC has misused the term un the past.

WotC is really in a no win situation here. The term edition has been so misused so much by D&D over the years, that it has no actual meaning. No mater how they use it, there will inevitably be people who claim they are using it wrong.

I really think that their plan of dropping edition numbers is the best one. It undercuts most of the edition talk by just claiming there are no editions anymore, its all just "evergreen" D&D.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No you don't get my point at all actually, as Im not arguing against the idea of an evergreen game. Thats how a lot of games work afterall.

What Im arguing against is the implementation, and the unforced error of trying to mix editions.

If you're going to go evergreen, start clean. Don't bolt on an entirely separate game, that you're never going to update separately from the new game, for no reason at all.

I said it earlier in this topic, but deprecation is a necessary part of maintaining a continually developed game.

So... your entire argument rests on them mixing editions, while they are saying that there are not two editions.

I know you've brought up things like "but what if someone is looking online and finds a build guide that uses old rules!"

You do know... that already happens, right? If you want a fully 5e example, I know MANY build guides that talk about which racial options are best for certain classes because of their ASIs... and ever since Tasha's optional rule, that information may be useless. And ever since some of those options were revised and changed in Monsters of the Multiverse. So right now when I go to RPGbot.net... oh look, Fighter Races Breakdown - DnD 5e | RPGBOT they completely updated their guide to take that into account and labeled the source books being used.

But even without that, do you know the number of times I've tried to google a monster and ended up on the 3.5 homebrew wiki? It happens CONSTANTLY. Looking for a class or subclass? Same thing. Or I get pathfinder results. And sure, it takes me a minute sometimes to figure out if I'm on the wrong site... but this happens already. Your concern about the confusion of the players is something that ALREADY is a factor.

Now, you might start going on about how "now it is worse" but... how? Seriously, those fighter races? Under Aasimar they have three different versions, two of which use two different rule sets for ASIs, leading to a total of FIVE options for Aasimar. And they probably aren't even the worst ones. This is a burden that has been handled by the community already. There is no reason to assume we are incapable of handling it in the future and the people who make those guides aren't going to be able to make notes and edit like they ALREADY DO.

 

[Emberashh]

But we might as well say the nuMonk is going to be unusuable

I called it that they were going to buff Wizard. I fully expect Monks ki problem to be even worse and for it to be filled with even more irrelevant ribbons.

Maybe wait until they are done with the process before determining the process is a failure?

No room for foresight is a strange hill to be on. Particularly when I, explicitly, acknowledge that substantive changes would change the assessment. But that still ultimately depends on what those changes are; their go at the Druid was substantial too, doesn't mean it was good.

so what, tables have been playing differently for 50 years now

You know, at this point Im not spelling it out for you. My point was clear.

what do you think WotC wants from 1D&D?

Enough sales to keep Hasbro afloat, without having to take a sales hit in the interim.

I don't believe the game designers actually believe any of this is a good idea that will work in the long term, but if they do then thats just a further indictment of the state of that company.

They did a clean start with the evergreen model.

If the rules as written in 2014 remain as is, you are not operating in an evergreen model.

To lean into that analogy, imagine if Call of Duty 4 had to integrate the entirety of all the previous Call of Duty entries, all unchanged and operating exactly the same as they originally did, as one "seamless" game. Thats the effective equivalent of what we're looking at.

2014 isn't being updated if it isn't being deprecated. Ergo, you're stacking editions together and that isn't going to work.

I am just curious, would you define 1d&d to be a new edition?

Yes, see above.

Because WotC

I don't believe the game designers think it isn't a new edition, because I give them the benefit of the doubt to know better.

 

[codo]

The test is particularly asking people to mix and match, so clearly using the new revisions alongside the originals is something that WotC is factoring into their design and balance.

They are factoring it in, but I really think the WotC (and me as well), thinks that most groups aren't going to play with both at once. That is just not the way most 5e players play the game. Those of us on the forums are the most hardcore of the hardcore players. We really are not a accurate sample of the average D&D players.

The vast majority of players never think about the game between sesions. They sit down with what every books they have and just pick a character that sounds fun to them, and them play them. The truth is that most players never give the game even 1% of the attention we do.

For the vast majority of D&D players their hobby is playing D&D, not thinking about, analyzing, and discussing D&D, like those of us here do.
Just to point out how out of touch with the average player some of us are, the most popular Sub-class, of the most popular class is the Champion.

 

[Emberashh]

WotC is really in a no win situation here. The term edition has been so misused so much by D&D over the years

Hasn't been misused so much as continually attempted to be moved away from for weak reasoning.

you've brought up things like "but what if someone is looking online and finds a build guide that uses old rules!"

Nope. And its also a false equivalence, as WOTC isn't telling anyone they can use homebrew wikis and build guides from 20 years ago.