D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[mamba]

That's probably because we're all expecting a 6e to make its' debut several years from now.

or because we do not think the changes justify jumping a whole edition. It’s not like 6 or so years ago we all decided that no matter what, no new rules for D&D could be called 6e before 2032

 

[Minigiant]

That's probably because we're all expecting a 6e to make its' debut several years from now.

Or
Or

Few of us think that is enough and big enough changes to consider it a full edition change where you would call it a different edition.

Is it a new edition?
Them: Yes
So it's 6e?
Them: No
So it's not a new edition. It's still 5e.

 

[Mull Ponders]

This book replaces everything in the old book. If we didn't cover it, use the old stuff but check our notes. Sounds like a new (compatible) edition to me.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well they're about to be. Unless 5.5e gets basically universal adoption among 5e players, there'll be a shorthand that'll quickly reach consensus for distinguishing between the older side the newer version of the rules. That wasn't necessary last year because of how dominant 5e was that if you just said "D&D" people would assume that you meant 5e. That's about to no longer become true.

WotC just doesn't have enough pull to make the updated version of 5e be simply "D&D" the way that 5e has been.

You've got a decent point, but I think that the new books will be "basically universally adopted". Unlike most people here - this isn't because of my opinion of the rules themselves (as a gamer) but because of my 30 years of experience selling D&D books that I think this. They did the right thing here (for that) in that you can adopt the new rules partially and bits-at-a-time. You really can have some people show up at a table that is playing 5e with a new 2024 character (or vice-versa) and play (as long as the DM is okay with it and familiar with any new rules). That's going to go a long way.

 

[Minigiant]

This book replaces everything in the old book. If we didn't cover it, use the old stuff but check our notes. Sounds like a new (compatible) edition to me.

The question is whether a revised edition is a part of the old edition or new edition.

 

[payn]

I think there are two types of folks here clinging to the .5 nomenclature. Those that just want an easy to understand differentiator based on precedent, and those actively wanting an edition overhaul because they hate 5E. For the latter, whether its hoping for an even simpler OSR D&D, or a return of 4E, adding .5 officially signifies that 5E is over the hill and the day they long awaited for is getting ever closer.

On the subject of evergreen, its true its not proven to be a sustainable product idea. Eventually, some need for overhaul will come about. However, that when is quite debatable. Windows made changes where the versions are now few and far apart compared to every few years of the past. Some folks love to rail on 3E as a "horribly broken system" that had to be replaced. Though, Paizo was facing stiff competition in 5E that was eating their lunch forcing them to take action, after they got a good decade out of that "horribly broken" must overhaul system. 5E has all the advantages that 3E/PF1 did not. Like Windows, D&D has no real competitor in its market. It also has the bonus of a glacial rules supplement release schedule. 3E a "horribly broken system" got 20 years at a break neck release schedule! 5E could keep this pace up easily for another 10, 20, 30+ years. I wouldn't like the sound of that either if I hated 5E.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It has nothing to do with "nefarious." I think it's reflecting weaknesses of character in corporate culture. That's not nefarious; at worst, it's simply that marketing-speak and corporate-speak is plastic, hollow, and talking out of both sides of its mouth. Given the ways WotC has behaved over the last two years, I don't think it's particularly unfair to say that the upper-level, corporate types are making some double-plus ungood decisions lately.

Hey, I'm no WotC-apologist (see me in the thread on Video Takedowns). I'm also extremely critical of corporations in general and of late-stage capitalism. I think it's bad for business. I honestly believe that the pursuit of next quarter's profit growth nearly always destroys the potential for profit in the next-next quarter, or the quarter after that. Or put simply, continuous exponential growth is impossible and pursuing it will almost always result in inevitable decline.

Smart business, to me, would be to go for sustained profit, with careful, considered, measured growth down the line.

For example, one should NEVER insult their current customers while trying to pursue new ones! To me, that's insane.

And I'm of the opinion that "5.5e" is significantly more compatible with the things your alleged "'mainstream' audience" would know and understand, while "2024 D&D" is not.

Okay. I don't agree. Let's leave it at that.

That I can figure it out does not mean what I'm figuring out is necessarily respectful.

Of course, but it's not an insult to trust us to understand their messaging. Of course, they didn't take into account the misinformation campaigns working against them. And they're terrible at being really straight forward, I'll grant.

That will never happen. Period. It is not possible to iteratively update all possible things. Paizo literally, explicitly said that to their fanbase, when Mr. Bulmahn both eloquently and respectfully asked for PF1e players to give the new edition a chance. He was both circumspect and honest with his audience: the 3e "engine," so to speak, is simply broken beyond repair. It cannot be fixed by slow, iterative updates. It has to be replaced, one way or another. Drop Dead Studios' Spheres of Power/Might system is a similar recognition that the existing rules of 3e are simply broken beyond repair, and have to be replaced; they simply went in a rather different (and interesting!) direction.

You're conflating two different things. I'm not saying that they won't keep updating the rules of the game. I'm saying that they want to stop using the borked numbering system.

Do you remember when Mearls (I think it was) said that they discovered that when they went for PHB2 in 4e, that they found that it was common in "mainstream" (IE non-FLGSes) stores to find that customers thought that it REPLACED PHB1 rather than added to it?

This is different than that, of course, but my point is: You might be surprised by what is clear and unclear across larger swathes of people, than say, what is clear and unclear places like here on these boards.

People here would generally LOVE "5.5e" to be the name. But if it was UNIVERSALLY true that it's a good name, WotC would use it. (Not that WotC can't make stupid mistakes - we all know that they absolutely can, but they're not doing it here).

Whereas I think they were fools to think it would work then, and they're fools to think it will work now. There will be a sixth edition, sooner or later. Nothing is eternally evergreen. Remember when Microsoft swore up and down that Windows 10 would be the eternal one? That's why they skipped over naming it the number 9 (even though it is, internally, version 9.x), because the new version would be forever and calling the 9th version the forever version felt off to them?

And now we're only a year out from Windows 10 end-of-life, with Windows 11 being a mildly controversial but relatively accepted platform.

I suppose that if these new books crash and burn like 4e did (or worse) than they might call a future product 6e. But see above - they can produce what would effectively be 6e and NOT CALL IT THAT. And we can gnash our teeth on these boards and argue over whether they should have called it 6e or not.

We're in agreement that the rules will continue to be updated. The gamer in me likes more change, rather than less. The retailer likes the idea of backwards compatibility. I'm at odds with myself.

The dream of the evergreen edition/OS/platform/whatever is as much a pipe dream as the 3e engine's dream of having a discrete rule for everything and giving every discrete rule pride of place. It simply does not work; eventually, you realize all the places you've designed yourself into a corner that you can't fix with mere iterative updates. The caster/martial disparity, for example, cannot be fixed with a backwards-compatible rules system, unless you're okay with either massive nerfs to casters or massive power creep for martials.

I can't say that I disagree with much of this, other than that you CAN do it with iterative updates, but it's harder and takes time. I'm not sure that enough of the fanbase cares about the caster/martial disparity (I'm with you on it, but we might be outnumbered).

 

[Minigiant]

I can't say that I disagree with much of this, other than that you CAN do it with iterative updates, but it's harder and takes time. I'm not sure that enough of the fanbase cares about the caster/martial disparity (I'm with you on it, but we might be outnumbered).

I think there are inherit and deep flaws with 5e that many or even the majority of 5e players and DMs believe are there. It is only tolerated because they like most of the mechanics, their old material, their friends like it, it is actively supported, and is popular.

However there's a reason why there are so many 5e clones of the PHB, MM, and DMG.

No one cares about 5e's flaws and then suddenly everybody cares. 3e-4e situation, eventually the majority of the community will not accept 5e's subjective flaws and calls for 6e will be the majority.

 

[Corinnguard]

However there's a reason why there are so many 5e clones of the PHB, MM, and DMG.

Probably because some of us think that one of the 5e clones has fixed one or more of 5e's flaws.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No one cares about 5e's flaws and then suddenly everybody cares. 3e-4e situation, eventually the majority of the community will not accept 5e's subjective flaws and calls for 6e will be the majority.

Sure. And then we'll be stuck with 6e's flaws.