D&D (2024) Do you plan to adopt D&D5.5One2024Redux?

[UngeheuerLich]

Well to be honest they didn't exactly make that clear in their statements.

They did. Some people just did not understand. Look at all the videos. They are crystal clear.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I suppose at the end of the day, I'd really prefer that they called new core books for the same game with significantly different information by new names.

You said in a previous post that 1e to 2e and 3.0 to 3.5 were equal steps forward.

So what name do you propose that is a unique identifier that grasps the amount of changes best? I see a contradiction there.
Maybe PHB of the Fallen Lands? We know how that went.

The lack of distinct labeling bothers the heck of me. I cannot seem to get over it.

2024 is not unique enough?

Additionally, when I run against strong resistance to caring about any of this from most of the community, it makes me more inclined to complain about it, not less, since I feel like I'm being dismissed.

I don't dismiss you. But I really see no chance to put a lable of it that is less confusing than calling the new books as what they are PHB 2024 edition. I don't see how WotC can communicate clearer...

 

[Maxperson]

It’s obviously impossible to compromise on a “include/don’t include” binary. That’s why the best position is to simply not care either way. That’s why the “who cares” position is to simply include whatever people want to use, because rejection requires a certain level of curation and concern.

It's not wrong to care about what you want in a game. The best position is to care and then find other players who care about similar things. That way you have an entire group who cares about what's in the game rather than one that doesn't.

 

[mamba]

Or they could have admitted that they were making new books to replace the old ones.

that is so obvious, it needs no admitting. All the new books need is pointing out that they are compatible, because that is not immediately obvious

 

[Maxperson]

And I agree with pretty much all that. My only caveat is that you should have a really good reason to want to reject something. “I only want to have exactly one version of a class” is, to me, a very bad reason to reject something, but people seem oddly attached to it for aesthetic reasons that are foreign to me.

The bolded are very important here. It's a bad reason to you because you don't understand it. That doesn't make it a bad reason in general, though. Aesthetics are important to people and only having one class can and is a good reason for those to whom it's not foreign.

Again, finding people who want what you want is the best way to go about playing this, and probably every RPG.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Or they could have admitted that they were making new books to replace the old ones.

Sigh. Again, they are only to replace the old ones if that's what your group WANTS to do. IF your group (obviously not YOUR group) wants to play with a mix, or stick to 2014 but buy new Adventure books, or whatever, WotC is still happy to take your money.

As you say, they want and expect most groups to make the switch, but they ALSO want you to be able to keep buying new books (even OLD 5e books that you don't yet own - this is the most important bit - they don't want you to think that you can't still pick up Out of the Abyss and run it). They want to keep their large back catalogue viable!

Calling it a new edition or even a revision makes it sound like the old books are obsolete. (Which is SORT OF true for the PHB, unless you Frankenstein it, which YOU and I might not do, but A LOT of people do!)

They don't want people to think that they can't combine them, and they don't want people to think that they can't buy old or new books.

With that in mind: What else can they do? Because they HAVE been explicit about the above, they just haven't said what you want to hear. Because they don't agree with what you want to hear.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I suppose at the end of the day, I'd really prefer that they called new core books for the same game with significantly different information by new names. The lack of distinct labeling bothers the heck of me. I cannot seem to get over it.

Additionally, when I run against strong resistance to caring about any of this from most of the community, it makes me more inclined to complain about it, not less, since I feel like I'm being dismissed.

You're not being dismissed! You are being disagreed with. I respect you enough to speak to you about it. If I wanted to dismiss you, I'd move along.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You said in a previous post that 1e to 2e and 3.0 to 3.5 were equal steps forward.

So what name do you propose that is a unique identifier that grasps the amount of changes best? I see a contradiction there.
Maybe PHB of the Fallen Lands? We know how that went.

2024 is not unique enough?

I don't dismiss you. But I really see no chance to put a lable of it that is less confusing than calling the new books as what they are PHB 2024 edition. I don't see how WotC can communicate clearer...

5.5? 5e revised? 5e 2024? Any label on the book that is not just "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook".

 

[Corinnguard]

5.5? 5e revised? 5e 2024? Any label on the book that is not just "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook".

Something like the Adventurer's Guide in Level Up?

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is so obvious, it needs no admitting. All the new books need is pointing out that they are compatible, because that is not immediately obvious

And if the new book didn't have the exact same name as the old one, and no admission of an edition change, I would stop talking about it. Either one of those things. Either call it an edition change, or give the new book any label that is not simply "Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook". Don't make the public label the books differently, do it yourself.