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

[mamba]

It not a revision. When you revise something, you replace what came before it with the old. This is not a revision, it's an addition.

they are revised rules. Whether they are used at all, used as a replacement or alongside is up to you. Same as TCoE or MotM.

And what you say about "any revision is optional" goes for anything: any upgrade, new book, etc... that's optional.

that doesn’t make it wrong, I even said it is no different from TCoE or MotM

Edition switches are optional.

yes, but not switching means you stay behind while the game moves on without you, see 3e to 4e.

This is no edition switch, so you are still included, however you decide. You can play the 2025 adventure with the 2014 rules, 2024 rules, or a mix.

 

[Remathilis]

Because when compatibility is questioned, the go-to argument is always, "It's compatible because old adventures will still work". Why are adventures so important? As I've said, a lot of people (perhaps even most people) don't even run them.

Enough do. I do. I know other DMs who do. Not all the time nor every one, but homebrewing adventures can get tiring, especially when the demands of life limit prep time.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The whole point with the new classes is to fix balance. Even the arguments about adoption are largely based around the idea that the vast, vast majority of people are going to convert wholly to 2024 and not use 2014... so why even have the option? Why not make that the homebrew choice, to bring in old classes rather than to have it the standard?

That is an artificial problem. Not a lot of people care what is homebrew and what bot. Most people will easily figure out what they will allow at the table and what not.

 

[Justice and Rule]

But it's not about those who don't buy them. It's about customers who do buy them. I would absolutely explore design that support the fans who buy more of my products.

Sure, but do we actually see incompatibility with old adventures with 1D&D? Do we see likely incompatibility with new adventures with old 5E? The way I see things, I don't see WotC's class designs changing how the game functions at a base level as much as balancing things out across the classes. Whether you see it as a success or not might vary, but that definitely seems like the intent. So why would we assume that, if this is all they are doing with 1D&D, that calling it a new edition would make new adventures not work with the old rules and the old adventures not work with the new rules?

Only thing that comes to mind is if they decided to borrow the luck as a stat concept that I'm pretty sure DCC has. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if the 2024 book has that as a stat and a 2024 adventure has a mechanic tied to a player's luck stat, that's going to be confusing for a DM using 2014 books

If they invented a new stat and made that key, yeah, that'd do something. Is there indications that they are doing that, though? Again, not sure I see how old adventures with new material or new adventures with old material are going to really be incompatible going forward.

they are revised rules. Whether the are used at all, used as a replacement or alongside is up to you. Same as TCoE or MotM.

If they aren't replacing something, they're not revisions. They're additions. If you can use either of them and they coexist, they aren't revisions. That's just not how revisions work.

that doesn’t make it wrong, I even said it is no different from TCoE or MotM

Sure, but I don't believe I said it was right or wrong. I just don't think it works as a line of argumentation in this case.

yes, but not switching means you stay behind while the game moves on without you, see 3e to 4e.

But the game is moving on. You can say that you are supporting the old stuff, but if you are changing the Warlock to a half-caster, I'm fairly sure the old version is getting left in the dust. Clearly they are willing to do that given what they put out, even if they end up changing the design.

And really, that's been the argument of the other side of this anyways: Almost everyone is going to buy the new stuff anyways. Design is almost certainly going to follow what the new stuff does more than the old. Trying to create for both the old classes and the new... that seems optimistic, in my opinion.

This is no edition switch, so you are still included, however you decide. You can play the 2025 adventure with the 2014 rules, 2024 rules, or a mix.

You could almost do that anyways. Again, the idea that "We gotta make it so that people can still use the old rules with new adventures" really seems suspect given that I don't think most adventures really rely on incredibly specific powers or feats to run. But again, I don't really run published adventures so maybe I've missed something. But more often than not they're pretty general with what they allow.

That is an artificial problem. Not a lot of people care what is homebrew and what bot. Most people will easily figure out what they will allow at the table and what not.

Sure, but you can just say that with a half-edition switched or a "revised core rulebook". "We can use the new stuff, but we're going to use the old Warlock" is something you can do regardless of an edition switch right now because the fundamental mechanics of 1D&D are the same as 5E, no matter what they do with the classes. It's a made-up problem because you're already telling me GMs will solve it anyways, so why do you need to explicitly approve of it.

More importantly, do you think Adventurer's Guild and that stuff are going to be able to support this sort of stuff, because I see it being phased out. I think having to deal with the old classes is bad for that sort of play in general.

 

[Azzy]

Incredibly naive question, I know, but are there any answers to these questions that don't revolve around making more money?

Sure. It allows people that want to DM a particular adventure to do so with minimal to no conversion regardless of whether they use the '14 or the '24 core rules. So, it's beneficial to the buyer (regardless of whether they buy into the revised edition) as well as the seller.

 

[mamba]

I don't see WotC's class designs changing how the game functions at a base level as much as balancing things out across the classes. Whether you see it as a success or not might vary, but that definitely seems like the intent. So why would we assume that, if this is all they are doing with 1D&D, that calling it a new edition would make new adventures not work with the old rules and the old adventures not work with the new rules?

since a label does not change the content, they would obviously remain compatible, regardless of what official name you give to 1DD.

What will change is perception. We had so many editions that were incompatible with what came before, that the natural assumption is that this is the case this time too.
Educating 95% of players that it is not, is a lot more work than just calling it 5e and not having the problem in the first place

If they aren't replacing something, they're not revisions. They're additions. If you can use either of them and they coexist, they aren't revisions. That's just not how revisions work.

semantics, WotC calls them revised rules, they are changes to existing rules. Whether they replace anything or not is up to you.

But the game is moving on. You can say that you are supporting the old stuff, but if you are changing the Warlock to a half-caster, I'm fairly sure the old version is getting left in the dust.

by whom? The new modules can be used with the old Warlock.

If players move to 1DD and abandon 5e, great. No harm done (and the 5e adventures continue to work).
If players were to stick with 5e but WotC were to abandon it, they are stuck.

The point is that WotC continues to support your game (with new adventures, monsters, …) no matter what you decide. Thereby avoiding the fracture that every edition switch brings with it

And really, that's been the argument of the other side of this anyways: Almost everyone is going to buy the new stuff anyways. Design is almost certainly going to follow what the new stuff does more than the old. Trying to create for both the old classes and the new... that seems optimistic, in my opinion.

design what? New subclasses? Yes, that is probably an either or (but if someone wanted to, they could easily provide one version for either). Anything else? That works for both

Sure, but you can just say that with a half-edition switched or a "revised core rulebook". "We can use the new stuff, but we're going to use the old Warlock" is something you can do regardless of an edition switch right now because the fundamental mechanics of 1D&D are the same as 5E, no matter what they do with the classes.

so why then call it a new edition?

I think we are pretty much in agreement about what the 1D&D consequences are. We do disagree on what to call it however. To me calling it 5e makes sense because it is compatible and that name reflects that. Calling it 5.5 or 6e will be associated with incompatibilities and a break where you either play all 2014 or all 2024, including monster books, adventures, etc.

Since this is neither wanted nor accurate, the edition remains 5e

 

[Justice and Rule]

Sure. It allows people that want to DM a particular adventure to do so with minimal to no conversion regardless of whether they use the '14 or the '24 core rules. So, it's beneficial to the buyer (regardless of whether they buy into the revised edition) as well as the seller.

But there would already be minimal conversion anyways because we've seen what 1D&D is doing and even if you called it a half edition it wouldn't change how adventures were built. It doesn't change mechanics in that way because adventures are generally not written to rely on specific class-based powers for obvious reasons.

What makes "incompatibility" happen between adventures is massive mechanical changes. That's not really happening at the GM level, but rather at the player-facing level: they are changing classes in some ways to rebalance and redefine them. However, the structure is fairly similar and they aren't busting out in different ways that are going to set them on completely different paths. Acting like putting the words "5.5E" suddenly would make things incompatible ignores what we actually know about 1D&D.

since a label does not change the content, they would obviously remain compatible, regardless of what official name you give to 1DD.

I mean, labels don't define mechanics. That would be more important. You could call it 6E, but if works off the same ideas of 3E, they are compatible.

What will change is perception. We had so many editions that were incompatible with what came before, that the natural assumption is that this is the case this time too.
Educating 95% of players that it is not, is a lot more work than just calling it 5e and not having the problem in the first place

Look, I've already been told the only people who pay attention are the hardcore people who already know and that everyone is going to buy the book regardless. The idea that that suddenly changes by talking about a half-edition revision is kind of laughable, in my opinion. What I would see as more important would be actual changes being implemented, like big class changes. That will affect perception way more.

 

[mamba]

Look, I've already been told the only people who pay attention are the hardcore people who already know and that everyone is going to buy the book regardless. The idea that that suddenly changes by talking about a half-edition revision is kind of laughable, in my opinion. What I would see as more important would be actual changes being implemented, like big class changes. That will affect perception way more.

I disagree entirely, the name is easily as important.

Can you pretend that a 6e is compatible with 5e by calling it 5e? Not indefinitely

Can giving a compatible revision of 5e the name 6e completely ruin that revision and have the vast majority believe that it is not compatible? You betcha

 

[Justice and Rule]

I disagree entirely, the name is easily as important.

Can you pretend that a 6e is compatible with 5e by calling it 5e? Not indefinitely

Can giving a compatible revision of 5e the name 6e completely ruin that revision and have the vast majority believe that it is not compatible? You betcha

I mean, alternatively can you continue to say that 2014 is going to be supported while design completely moves away from it? No, you won't be able to. It's a lie to say that it will continue indefinitely and I would expect it to actually be phased out eventually.

Alternatively, you can say that your adventures still work with 5E because, well, that's a question of mechanics, not of whatever little number you put in front. If 1D&D ends up as "6E", then people who play 5E can still likely buy new adventures unless adventure design changes drastically from what it was previously.

I feel like the only reason we're talking about "perception" is because we're basically talking about vibes and thus don't have to actually reference the reality we see with 1D&D's changes. We can just say it'll cause something like 3E to 4E or 4E to 5E or whatever because the number shifted, rather than look at the context (particularly the mechanical context) of those events.

 

[mamba]

I mean, alternatively can you continue to say that 2014 is going to be supported while design completely moves away from it? No, you won't be able to.

define support, they can be used with new adventures, setting books, monster manuals,… they won’t get any more subclasses. To me that is them being supported.

I feel like the only reason we're talking about "perception" is because we're basically talking about vibes and thus don't have to actually reference the reality we see with 1D&D's changes. We can just say it'll cause something like 3E to 4E or 4E to 5E or whatever because the number shifted, rather than look at the context (particularly the mechanical context) of those events.

I think the number in itself has importance, because of how editions were handled in the past. Is that irrational? Sure, but plenty of things are and people make uninformed and irrational decisions based on them every day

You don’t want to be in a position where only a well informed player would think of 5e and 1DD as compatible.