Iteration.

[Mark CMG]

Some of this year's releases are going to be edition-neutral, but AFAIK 4e ain't done yet.

That's not even mentioning DDI stuff.

DDI stuff and, I suppose, as long as they are running Encounters they are still trying to sell and support 4E in some small measure. I suppose, too, that to say "completely and utterly factually wrong" might be a bit strong if someone is used to the support of the past three (and a half years) and isn't a DDI user. At the least, support is being scaled back a great deal. I'm guessing they'll continue some measure of support right up until they announce the actual 5E release date.

 

[Yora]

Didn't they cancel several announced books last fall?

No matter how you look at it, saying that they cancelled 4E after just 3 years is completely and utterly factually wrong.

Okay, they didn't cancel it. They simply gave it the poison cup and didn't call it canceling.

I managed to track down two threads in which I started discussions about 4th Edition seeming to come to an end, which suprised me by being dated as far back as early July and were based on observations from the preceding months.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205730
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207470

 

[nedjer]

It allows them to work on redefining the game in terms of shaping more overlapping and connective layers of gameplay, formatting and/ or themes.

A move from the sharp snap of a broken edition limb to smooth, flexible transitions between different styles/ types of gameplay, formats and themes.

 

[drothgery]

They're going a long way out of their way to avoid the term "5th Edition". Not only do they not use it, but their PR company requests people like me not to use it. I just use the term I think people will understand, though.

And Microsoft doesn't like it when people speculating about the next Xbox call it the Xbox 720. Which is fine, but in the absence (as far as the general public knows) of what they'll actually call the thing and even a leaked internal codename, what else are we going to call it? That's the logical progression from the name of the current system.

If WotC doesn't want us to call the next edition of D&D 5e for some reason, then they pretty much have to leak or outright say what they are going to call it (and if it's just D&D with no qualifier, then we're going to call it 5e anyway).

 

[am181d]

Worth pointing out: 4th Edition is not actually the fourth edition of D&D. It's actually the... 6th? 7th? 8th? Depending on how you count it.

And given that their big goal for 5e (see what I just did there?) is to unify the base around a system that finds inspiration in many previous versions of the game, it makes sense to change up the terminology.

Just because you're being marketed to, doesn't mean WotC is doing anything underhanded. Marketing, when done properly, is just presenting your product in a way that emphasizes why it should appeal to your target audience.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Ok. Crazy theory time.

My crazy theory is that they'll just call the core, basic game 'Dungeons & Dragons' with no edition or anything, and they'll OGL it, or use some other license to give those rules to the world.

Then they'll produce 'Advanced' supplements to flesh out the game. In this, crazy!, future, we could have people all playing D&D, but some are using the 'Third Edition' of the 'Advanced' rules, some are using the 'Fourth Edition' of those rules, and some are the first 'Advanced' set grognards, but the base, basic, core rules are all the same D&D rules being discussed now.

If they make the core simple and streamlined enough, the market could easily become filled with D&D: Dragon Age, or whatever, with a completly different suite of 'advanced rules' built atop the basic core.

This (crazy) theory fits with the statements they've made about D&D belonging to the community and such.

I hope this is how it goes down, but I think it's probably too crazy for the suits to get on board.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Worth pointing out: 4th Edition is not actually the fourth edition of D&D. It's actually the... 6th? 7th? 8th? Depending on how you count it.

Also worth pointing out: 4th edition is the fourth official edition of the Advanced D&D game. Which was, according to the marketing geniuses from ye olde TSR anyway, not the same as plain-old D&D. Something like:

OD&D_________
|            |
Basic     1e AD&D
|              |
Classic      2e AD&D
|                  |
(WotC         (Wotc renames "AD&D"
kills "D&D")   to "D&D" for 3e)
                      |
                     4e
                      |  
                     5e

Whatever 5e turns out to be, it definitely won't be "D&D" (in the limited TSRian sense). It'll be AD&D with the option to emulate something like D&D by turning all the complexity dials down to zero.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Didn't they cancel several announced books last fall?


Okay, they didn't cancel it. They simply gave it the poison cup and didn't call it canceling.

I managed to track down two threads in which I started discussions about 4th Edition seeming to come to an end, which suprised me by being dated as far back as early July and were based on observations from the preceding months.

(Almost) no more new setting books? - Giant in the Playground Forums
Continuation of the D&D brand (from a business perspective) - Giant in the Playground Forums

You post erroneous facts, then try to reword things to try to save face. Your post have little to do with the thread topic, do they? Yet you are only fanning the flames of editions wars. Again!

 

[Ichneumon]

'Edition' is worn out, and 'iteration' has too much of an IT development feel. The term they're looking for, when attempting to describe the ordinal something of D&D, is 'crack at'.

 

[delericho]

Worth pointing out: 4th Edition is not actually the fourth edition of D&D. It's actually the... 6th? 7th? 8th? Depending on how you count it.

7th, I think:

1) OD&D
2) B/X D&D
3) BECMI D&D (later reissued as the "Black Box" and "Rules Cyclopedia", but these are just a repackaging of the same info, not a true new version)
4) AD&D 1st Edition * (post "Unearthed Arcana" and the two "Survival Guides" might or might not be considered a 1.5 Edition)
5) AD&D 2nd Edition ("Player's Option" may or may not be considered a 2.5 Edition)
6) D&D 3e (later revised as 3.5e)
7) D&D 4e (later revised as Essentials)

* I've placed 1st Ed 4th on my list, but that's an arbitrary choice; #2/#3 and #4/#5 were parallel developments.

In some ways, it's a shame that WotC decided to declare that 6th version to be "Third Edition". Still, given that they did so, and we've since had a decade of speaking of 3e and later 4e, it makes sense that the next version would be 5e.

If would want, try counting like this:

0) OD&D - a prototype if you will
1) BD&D - the B/X and BECMI development path
2) AD&D - both 1st and 2nd Editions
3) 3e
4) 4e

And given that their big goal for 5e (see what I just did there?) is to unify the base around a system that finds inspiration in many previous versions of the game, it makes sense to change up the terminology.

That's fine, but for two things:

- If they're going to change the terminology, they need to make a clear statement about what they're going to call it. Otherwise, we get 5e, "D&D Next", or whatever else. We're going to call this new version something, so if they want to decide what that is, they need to be proactive in calling it that. (And "we're just calling it D&D" won't work - we're going to call it something that differentiates it from the previous versions.)

- They also have to accept that whatever they choose to call it, we're probably mostly going to call it 5e. Hell, we've been calling it that since before 4e was released (or, actually, even announced). Trying to call it anything else is probably a losing battle.

Just because you're being marketed to, doesn't mean WotC is doing anything underhanded. Marketing, when done properly, is just presenting your product in a way that emphasizes why it should appeal to your target audience.

Of course.