D&D (2024) First playtest thread! One D&D Character Origins.

[doctorbadwolf]

Do you think there won't be editions wars out there just because they'll call it One D&D or whatever they decide to call 6e when it comes out? People argue because of the changes, not because they're labeled editions.

I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.

 

[Maxperson]

I’m not sure what on earth you’re even responding to, here.

Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars. That was the appearance anyway. If you had another meaning, I missed it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Following your response and the post you were responding to, it looked like you were saying that they are avoiding calling it One D&D instead of 5.5e is to avoid edition wars. That was the appearance anyway. If you had another meaning, I missed it.

My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.

 

[Maxperson]

My comment on the idea that the designers had to be told by the marketing department not to use edition terminology, with the underlying implication that marketing is why they are focused on an “evergreen” D&D, etc, somehow gave you the impression that I was saying something that bears no resemblance to what I said. Okay.

You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.

Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You used the 4e edition wars as your example for why the designers might avoid using edition. That wouldn't be relevant as people will argue no matter what. Avoiding calling it an edition is probably for some other reason.

Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition.

Edit: At this point though, we're just arguing over my not understanding what you were saying(I still don't), so I'm going to bow out of this little back and forth.

It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war.

Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.

 

[Maxperson]

Lol you don’t think that being the designers for D&D during that time might make someone reluctant to continue the edition cycle? Seriously? The terminology not only matters, it’s also the stand-in and symbol for the entire idea of a new edition.

I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D. The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.

It’s easy. Someone suggested that the reason that they aren’t calling this an edition change is that “someone in marketing” told them not to. I countered that it’s odd to assume that it wasn’t an internal decision based on not wanting another edition war.

Anything else is just reading into the exchange beyond the actual scope of the exchange.

That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did. The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think they're smart enough to realize that people are going to have those wars whether they call it an edition or call it One D&D. The name isn't going to change anything in that regard.

Okay? You seem to be aggressively missing the point.

That's exactly what I read, which is why I responded with what I did. The term edition isn't what causes the wars and the won't stop by switching to another term.

I didn’t claim that it did, nor that it would.

Again, you are replying to things I haven’t said.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You’re not wrong, but we’ve been running on the same engine since 3.0: the d20 engine. Yes, 4e made some big changes and so did 5e; the 1D&D changes will probably be less significant than either of those. But at its core we’re still running on the same mechanical underpinning we have been since WotC got a hold of the IP.

I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine?

I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t know if I’d call the fundamental resolution mechanic the “engine”. It’s a primary component, sure, but the engine?

I think that redefines the term engine to a point where useful discussion using the term becomes harder.

Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not the resolution mechanic, the system. “The d20 system” is the general name for the 3e’s rules system, 4e and 5e (and PF and PF2) are evolutions of that system.

I know what the d20 system is. Very obviously. That isn’t what you said, first of all. You referred simply to the d20 resolution mechanic. Ie, roll d20 add mods compare to target number.

4e and 5e are not the same engine as the d20 system, however, so even if you meant the d20 system as a whole, it doesn’t work.

Things like unified bonus progression, advantage, and bounded accuracy, are enough to make them different “rules engines”.