How Many Editions of D&D Has There Really Been?

[Kaodi]

This is a bit of a fork from a thread on what they should call the next edition of D&D.

Morrus commented to another poster that the next edition will be, in truth, the 7th or 8th Edition.

I would have thought it would be the 7th discrete edition, with the others being OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3e (truly AD&D 3) and 4E (truly AD&D 4).

Is there really any substantial disagreement over this? What might the other missing " edition " that Morrus was referring to?

As I noted in that other thread, I am kind of of the opinion that D&D should pull a Final Fantasy and distinguish the next edition according to its true D&D number, not its AD&D successor number.

 

[Nagol]

Holmes' Basic perhaps? 3.5?

 

[Alzrius]

I would have thought it would be the 7th discrete edition, with the others being OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, AD&D 2nd, 3e (truly AD&D 3) and 4E (truly AD&D 4).

In all honesty, this is probably the best breakdown (though I refer to BECMI as "BD&D" or "Basic D&D" since there were basic sets such as B/X before BECMI; those had their own differences, true, but not so much that I'd single them out).

 

[Henry]

Too bad [MENTION=2885]diaglo[/MENTION] doesn't haunt these forums any more, he had a specific answer to this.

OD&D
AD&D
Holmes Basic D&D
Moldvay/Mentzer Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals
AD&D 2nd
3e
4E


...So, D&D Next will be "8th Edition?" Is this right? If you count the Players' Options books from 2E, and 3.5e, and 4E Essentials, it would be "11th edition D&D?"

To confirm though, Holmes Basic was a definitely different beast from BECMI. It was more like a mix of BECMI and AD&D, when you dissect it. BECMI just made the distinction between D&D andn AD&D clearer.

 

[Alzrius]

If you count the Players' Options books from 2E

This has long been a sore point with me; I find it disingenuous to refer to the Player's/DM's Option books from 2E as "2.5E."

Simply put, none of these required you to buy the Core Rulebooks again the way 3.5 did. Likewise, you couldn't use them all on their own to play the game (e.g. play a game with just them and not the Core Rulebooks) even if you wanted to, the way you could with the Basic Sets.

They were supplements, no different from any other. Yes, they introduced some greater changes to the rules, but they needed the 2E books to be used; a new edition, even an "upgrade" is (to me) judged as such when it reintroduces the core of how the game is played. Hence, these don't deserve to be called 2.5E.

 

[Gentlegamer]

This has long been a sore point with me; I find it disingenuous to refer to the Player's/DM's Option books from 2E as "2.5E."

I think it's fair in the same way as referring to Unearthed Arcana as "1.5E."

 

[kinem]

OD&D*
AD&D 1st*
B/X*
BECMI
AD&D 2nd*
3e*
3.5
3.75 (not official, but very many DMs had one in the late 3.5 era)
4E*
4E Essentials (some say)
Pathfinder (yes, face it)

* = an officially new edition

So 5e will be the 7th official edition, but really 12th edition. There were more, if you include material that introduced substantial changes as options for the earlier editions.

Generally speaking, every edition has had its "+.5", by some name or another. So about every second edition is a more substantial change and gets a new number.

 

[Alzrius]

I think it's fair in the same way as referring to Unearthed Arcana as "1.5E."

Yeah, but I don't think that's fair either; after all, if that's the case, why not refer to the 3.5E Unearthed Arcana as 3.75E? And since Tome of Battle introduced a lot of concepts that were highlighted in Fourth Edition, can we call it 3.875E?

 

[Gentlegamer]

Yeah, but I don't think that's fair either; after all, if that's the case, why not refer to the 3.5E Unearthed Arcana as 3.75E? And since Tome of Battle introduced a lot of concepts that were highlighted in Fourth Edition, can we call it 3.875E?

I'm fine with that.

 

[Mark CMG]

There's a decent guide here.