Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 9432669" data-attributes="member: 1">The Essentials line wasn't really a rules change like this is--it was more about format and pulling out the important bits. It was kind of a '4E Basic'.What we had here was was inconsistent branding--it started as 'One D&D', which was the name of the ruleset until it got backtracked ("It means that fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D. For example, if you want to run Curse of Strahd in One D&D, that book will work with the new versions of the core rulebooks." [<a href="https://dndbeyond-support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/articles/8609273323156-One-D-D-FAQ" target="_blank">link</a>]) followed by a lot of 'you need these new books but you don't need these new books' style messaging. And the avoidance of the word 'edition' centres around not wanting people to stop buying stuff during the 2-year development period; it's a marketing choice. Which I do get, but let's be honest about what it is. Paizo used the same tactic with its Remaster edition, rather than saying 'Pathfinder 3E'. I get it. The word 'edition' stops sales dead until the new edition appears.But now we have two Player's Handbooks which are entirely different books but have no clear branding to distinguish them.I feel that some kind of distinguishing branding would be beneficial. Apparently, others feel otherwise.</blockquote>