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

Status
Not open for further replies.
except that this does not make it an edition break, because the adventures from 2014 and 2024 stay one edition. It makes it a revision of the rules for that edition, just like Tashas already did for 5e, 4e essentials did, or the 2e player options did.
I thinknthe key is Crawford's admission that, yes, in normal publishing parlance, this is a new edition. But it's not a new Edition the way TSR and WotC have abused the term in the past, so they aren't marketing that way.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


True. Still a dumb idea . . . but a dumb idea that gave us two great games!

Similar to TSR's firehouse of AD&D 2E content with multiple product lines . . . not a great idea from a business standpoint, but damn, we got a lot of good content out of that era.
That's all I've ever been trying to say about that issue.
 

Oh, on that fork lies madness. There's the Holmes (1978), B/X Moldvay (1981), BECCMI Mentzer (1983), Rules Cyclopedia and Black Box (1991) and Classic D&D (1994). The Holmes and Moldvay revisions each had multiple printings with different contents (so may have had different ISBNs, I couldn't find that info, though).

Oh, please don't get me started.

The other thing you have to remember is this-

OD&D (LBBs + Supplements) was the original D&D.

Holmes "Basic" was Dr. Holmes trying to rationalize and simplify OD&D for newcomers. But, in the mind of Gygax and others, OD&D is what led to AD&D. AD&D is the successor to to OD&D (and Homes Basic). That's why it was originally called ADVANCED. You had Basic- what we would now call the "starter set" and then the Advanced Rules with all the bells and whistles. It's also why they added, before printing, the addition to Holmes Basic that if you wanted to play further, you should get the Advanced rules. Moreover, if you were following the hobby at the time, AD&D wasn't "new," it was mostly codified and edited OD&D rules at the time- those additional classes and materials were mostly drawn from supplements and Dragon magazine articles.

Moldvay Basic (B/X) was actually not based on Holmes, but it was also going back to OD&D, and while it went back to a lot of the early design decisions in the LBBs (minus the supplements) it also introduced some changes to streamline things- such as race as class.

So, while Moldvay Basic shares the name of Holmes Basic and some of the concepts (levels 1-3, for example, as well as looking back to the original OD&D rules) it's not exactly correct to say that Holmes Basic is the predecessor of Moldvay Basic; although it's not necessarily incorrect either.

There's an interesting article in Dragon 52 (Aug. 1981) where Holmes and Moldvay both discuss the new Basic. Holmes makes it clear that his remit and purpose was the clarify the OD&D rules, and states that, to the extent possible, he tried to use the original language of those rules. He also goes through the many changes of Moldvay Basic and his thoughts on them- but, to shed some light on the present conversation, he also repeatedly refers to Moldvay Basic as the "second edition."

Heck, the articles really speak to the whole mess all of this has been! The LBBs are referred to the Collectors Edition. Then you have the First Edition and Second Edition of the Basic Rules (thankfully, that never caught on). But the two editions are different, and have different purposes- the First Edition was created to be an introduction to the Collectors Edition for people who were not already playing, while the Second Edition was created because the market had changed and the "majority of D&D players are high-school and junior-high students."
 

except going forward tasha's has been optional add on, and nothing in 4e essentials replaced anything in 4e PHB.
the 2014phb is being replaced with 2024 phb
only if you choose to replace the 2014 version with it instead of mixing the two or staying with 2014 outright (or come to the game fresh in 2025 and on)

edit: did the player options of 2e like the name said just give new options?
no, they replaced several core rules, but were optional in the same way any non-core book is
 


I thinknthe key is Crawford's admission that, yes, in normal publishing parlance, this is a new edition. But it's not a new Edition the way TSR and WotC have abused the term in the past, so they aren't marketing that way.
in normal book publishing parlance we probably had around three editions for every D&D edition. Switching to that now when for 50 years it meant something else in the world of D&D is a bit problematic ;)

I would like for them to separate book edition from game edition. I am just not sure that using edition for ‘book revision’ is a good idea, esp. if your game is still being called ‘fifth edition of D&D’
 

if these had been add on classes not remade classes and most of the feats were new feats not remade feats and the condition changes and spell changes were called out as optional and it wasn't call PHB/DMG/MM I at least would feel less likely to call it a new edition.

that is my point, and one I have harped on since I came back to this board, no matter what they call it, it will act as an edition break after a bit.
Then you're not updating the PHB, you're making PHB 2. You're making 12 similar classes but not fixing any problems. You still have problems with twin spell and moon druids, you still haven't fixed guidance, true strike, or other broken or bad spells. You still have GWM/SS feats that are mandatory, but now they can be used with weapon mastery. The ranger, monk and sorcerer still have major issues, short rests are still a recharge mechanic and the PHB races still don't conform to MotM standards. You've fixed nothing and you are better off releasing another Guide to Everything and continue to sell the 14 Core Rulebook as is.
 

Then you're not updating the PHB, you're making PHB 2. You're making 12 similar classes but not fixing any problems. You still have problems with twin spell and moon druids, you still haven't fixed guidance, true strike, or other broken or bad spells. You still have GWM/SS feats that are mandatory, but now they can be used with weapon mastery. The ranger, monk and sorcerer still have major issues, short rests are still a recharge mechanic and the PHB races still don't conform to MotM standards. You've fixed nothing and you are better off releasing another Guide to Everything and continue to sell the 14 Core Rulebook as is.
I see nothing bad about what you're proposing.
 

I'm pretty sure that is not the case. AD&D 2E isn't that different than AD&D 1E, and there is no difference in the branding. I've certainly never heard that claim before.

You're not obligated, but . . . I'm going to need a source to believe that one.
If you're referring to the claim that one of the reasons behind 2e was to halt Gygax's royalty payments, he was quoted as saying "to save 2.5%, they wrecked the company" in the book Empire of Imagination by Michael Witwer. I'm not sure where they got the quote from, but given Lorraine Williams general treatment of Gygax on the way out, there's no real reason to doubt it. Royalty payments was a huge issue during the Williams era.

Edit: the book actually cites this forum as the source of that quote. The post is here.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top