D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[Micah Sweet]

that is a pretty weak argument for why a version number is so essential now in order to not confuse people

You are welcome to think so, and ignore my other arguments about players who don't keep up on the latest WotC news as well.

 

[R_J_K75]

I very much doubt that that is a decision the designers make

The CEO/President then? I'm not too familiar with the makeup of the D&D department of WotC

 

[mamba]

Because 5.0 and 5.5 actually are different, unlike those other examples.

you are missing my point, there is no difference in the supposed deception here, only the direction is reversed.

If anything the 2024 books are less deceptive than the reprints with different art, because 2024 also has new art, not just new rules. Your only reason why it is deceptive despite having a different cover is that the front has no version number. This still makes the 2024 books with different rules a lot more different from the 2014 books than the 2e reprints with the same rules but different art were from each other

 

[mamba]

You are welcome to think so, and ignore my other arguments about players who don't keep up on the latest WotC news as well.

yes, I do not think that is much of an argument either. You yourself dismissed it when I used it for the different 2e covers where the content stayed the same. That you cannot be consistent here shows bias, not a good argument

 

[Micah Sweet]

you are missing my point, there is no difference in the supposed deception here, only the direction is reversed.

When TSR re-issued the 2e corebooks with new covers, some new interior art, and a little new layout, the intent wasn't to get the same people to buy those books again. They updated their aesthetic design moving forward whilst keeping the content the same, and they were clear about that. Thus, it was honest.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes, I do not think that is much of an argument either. You yourself dismissed it when I used it for the different 2e covers where the content stayed the same. That you cannot be consistent here shows bias, not a good argument

The content inside is the same in those cases. No one got anything they didn't have any reason to expect. How is that deceptive?

 

[mamba]

When TSR re-issued the 2e corebooks with new covers, some new interior art, and a little new layout, the intent wasn't to get the same people to buy those books again. They updated their aesthetic design moving forward whilst keeping the content the same, and they were clear about that. Thus, it was honest.

maybe it wasn't, maybe it was... you yourself said that people do not keep up with D&D news.

My point is that many folks don't keep up with WotC news. They may just go in to buy a PH for a new game or as a replacement and find it to be full of different rules.

If someone who does not keep up finds a book with a new cover, would they expect it to be the same rules or new rules? I'd argue they expect new rules, in the 2024 they do find that, in the 2e case they did not, making the 2ed case more deceptive, yet you were perfectly fine with it

 

[R_J_K75]

You are welcome to think so, and ignore my other arguments about players who don't keep up on the latest WotC news as well.

AFAIK, even when 2E did the revision in the mid 90s I don't think they said anything, and just released them. Although the 2E designator was dropped from books and all supplements that came after. But at that point I don't remember seeing older versions of the 2E core books on shelves in chain stores alongside the revisions, but maybe in the occasional FLGS that still had some stock. I think I first found out about 3E from a card that came in a 2E boxed set, but it may have been dragon mag, and then the internet took over as a news source. 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5, 4E and 5E were all designated as being new editions. This time around WotC is going out of their way to say this is a revision, not a new edition. I'm not discounting that there will be some confusion for some people, but I think it's causing more of a controversy than anything.

 

[mamba]

The content inside is the same in those cases. No one got anything they didn't have any reason to expect. How is that deceptive?

Who says they were expecting the same content? You say that now they expect the same content because there is no version number, despite the different cover. I'd say if I have a different cover, I also expect different content.

Why would I expect the below to be the same rules?

 

[Micah Sweet]

maybe it wasn't, maybe it was... you yourself said that people do not keep up with D&D news.

If someone who does not keep up finds a book with a new cover, would they expect it to be the same rules or new rules? I'd argue they expect new rules, in the 2024 they do find that, in the 2e case they did not, making the 2ed case more deceptive, yet you were perfectly fine with it

I would argue that if the two books have the same name, and there's no new edition, and trade dress-wise it looks quite similar, that it is a new cover on an old book. Other books do it all the time.