D&D (2024) In Interview with GamesRadar, Chris Perkins Discusses New Books

[Parmandur]

I don't think it matter anymore. Done is done and it's not going to change. It's been this way for too long and among too many companies for change to happen.

Right, the term "edition" has been abused in TTRPG circles to the point of being useless...hence why WotC is dropping the term entirely. Which means, by default, ~90% of the TTRPG market no longer even uses "edition" to mean anything.

Okay, but that doesn't matter even a smidge. When discussing editions, we are using the industry definition, not the publishing definition. 1st, 3rd, 12th or 1 millionth publishing edition, it doesn't matter. In D&D there have been 5 editions(capital E) and that's what people discussing D&D editions are talking about.

No, there haven't been 5 "editions" in terms of unique game rules etc even, and "First Edition" wasn't even the first one. Rationally, there have been about 17 Editions of D&D, all of which still keep play and we talk about in these circles (such as the differences between Holmes vs. Moldvay vs
Meltzer D&D). By publication parlance, there have been 9 editions (as of this Summer) of the PHB and DMG lines. Anything else (like "3rd Edition", "3.5", or "5E") is just marketing BS.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, the term "edition" has been abused in TTRPG circles to the point of being useless...hence why WotC is dropping the term entirely. Which means, by default, ~90% of the TTRPG market no longer even uses "edition" to mean anything.

I disagree that it's useless. It's a different definition, sure, but that happens with words all the time. Many of our words meant something different years ago and now both definitions are present.

No, there haven't been 5 "editions" in terms of unique game rules etc even, and "First Edition" wasn't even the first one.

What was the earlier edition of AD&D?

Rationally, there have been about 17 Editions of D&D, all of which still keep play and we talk about in these circles (such as the differences between Holmes vs. Moldvay vs
Meltzer D&D). By publication parlance, there have been 9 editions (as of this Summer) of the PHB and DMG lines. Anything else (like "3rd Edition", "3.5", or "5E") is just marketing BS.

No. Those were not editions of D&D. They were separate and with the case of Basic/BECMI, concurrent games of D&D. Think of like the difference between chess and 4 way chess. Those are two different games that are both chess. 1st edition was the 1st edition of AD&D. 2nd edition was the 2nd edition of AD&D. 3rd edition was the 3rd edition of AD&D, even though they dropped the "advanced" from print. Being the next edition in that line made it AD&D. 4th and 5th editions are the 4th and 5th editions of AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

"Speaking frankly, [and] this is my own personal opinion, 12 classes is actually a lot," Perkins says. "If I were redesigning, if I could go back to 2012 to when we were talking about fifth edition for the first time, I would probably put a strong case forward that we could actually do with less classes in the core game. You know, keep the choices simple. Because when you're asking somebody to choose between a Sorcerer and a Wizard, to the untrained eye, it's not clear what the difference is until you start to drill down and you realize where they get their power from and how their spell-casting works. When you look at it superficially, they seem pretty much the same. And you know, what is the difference between a Barbarian and a Fighter? A Barbarian could almost be a subclass [for a] Fighter if we were designing this game from scratch."

This is a response regarding what he is saying here. The bolded part seems a bit(quite a bit) over the top. I mean, "training" and "drilling down" are literally accomplished by reading the class descriptions. Once you read the descriptions the differences he mentions are clear.

If you're choosing whether to be a sorcerer or wizard without reading anything about the classes, then any confusion on the difference is your fault.

 

[Parmandur]

I disagree that it's useless. It's a different definition, sure, but that happens with words all the time. Many of our words meant something different years ago and now both definitions are present.

But where there is consistent usage, the value of words decreases...until they stop getting used because they aren't helpful.

What was the earlier edition of AD&D?

Irrelevant, "Advanced" D&D was marketing BS mixed with a harebrained legal strategy to stick it to Dave Arneson. D&D is D&D.

No. Those were not editions of D&D. They were separate and with the case of Basic/BECMI, concurrent games of D&D. Think of like the difference between chess and 4 way chess. Those are two different games that are both chess. 1st edition was the 1st edition of AD&D. 2nd edition was the 2nd edition of AD&D. 3rd edition was the 3rd edition of AD&D, even though they dropped the "advanced" from print. Being the next edition in that line made it AD&D. 4th and 5th editions are the 4th and 5th editions of AD&D.

That all hinges on accepting silly marketing BS that is older than I am. Again, as with "half efitions", buying into the absurdity of "AD&D" and "BD&D" being different things is way more swallowing of corporate marketing than accepting D&D isn't using edition terminology anymore.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a response regarding what he is saying here. The bolded part seems a bit(quite a bit) over the top. I mean, "training" and "drilling down" are literally accomplished by reading the class descriptions. Once you read the descriptions the differences he mentions are clear.

If you're choosing whether to be a sorcerer or wizard without reading anything about the classes, then any confusion on the difference is your fault.

It is very insider baseball, to be honest, and not reflected in stuff thst ripped off earlier layers of D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

But where there is consistent usage, the value of words decreases...until they stop getting used because they aren't helpful.

Irrelevant, "Advanced" D&D was marketing BS mixed with a harebrained legal strategy to stick it to Dave Arneson. D&D is D&D.

That all hinges on accepting silly marketing BS that is older than I am. Again, as with "half efitions", buying into the absurdity of "AD&D" and "BD&D" being different things is way more swallowing of corporate marketing than accepting D&D isn't using edition terminology anymore.

It doesn't really matter if it was marketing BS or not. Whatever it was, it caught on big time and that's what edition currently means in gaming. Whether it was absurd or not is simply a matter of opinion. Clearly you don't like it, but D&D used it all the way through 5e, so at this point there has been zero time where D&D hasn't been using edition terminology. It's not a lot, but it is on the cover of the books and edition(s) were used in the DMG a couple of times.

 

[dave2008]

I disagree that it's useless. It's a different definition, sure, but that happens with words all the time. Many of our words meant something different years ago and now both definitions are present.

What was the earlier edition of AD&D?

No. Those were not editions of D&D. They were separate and with the case of Basic/BECMI, concurrent games of D&D. Think of like the difference between chess and 4 way chess. Those are two different games that are both chess. 1st edition was the 1st edition of AD&D. 2nd edition was the 2nd edition of AD&D. 3rd edition was the 3rd edition of AD&D, even though they dropped the "advanced" from print. Being the next edition in that line made it AD&D. 4th and 5th editions are the 4th and 5th editions of AD&D.

I am going to disagree just based on what you wrote (and I have no idea what the "correct" number). You are jumping through a lot of not very logical hoops to make your argument of 5 editions work. I mean, just look at the highlighted bit alone.

 

[dave2008]

It doesn't really matter if it was marketing BS or not. Whatever it was, it caught on big time and that's what edition currently means in gaming. Whether it was absurd or not is simply a matter of opinion. Clearly you don't like it, but D&D used it all the way through 5e, so at this point there has been zero time where D&D hasn't been using edition terminology. It's not a lot, but it is on the cover of the books and edition(s) were used in the DMG a couple of times.

I don't think the basic line ever used the "edition" terminology and despite your previous argument - it was an addition of D&D

 

[Maxperson]

I am going to disagree just based on what you wrote (and I have no idea what the "correct" number). You are jumping through a lot of not very logical hoops to make your argument of 5 editions work. I mean, just look at the highlighted bit alone.

What about the bolded parts? It points out the 5 editions. Are you talking about the half editions as editions? Those weren't. They were a part of the edition that put them out. Are you talking about the other games of D&D like basic? Those are not part of the numbered editions of the game, all of which are AD&D.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think the basic line ever used the "edition" terminology and despite your previous argument - it was an addition of D&D

Of course it didn't use the terminology. It wasn't an edition of the game. It was a separate game called D&D. Like my example above with chess and 4 way chess. Both are chess(D&D), but they are different games of chess(D&D). It can be argued that basic had different editions of that game, though.