D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

[Emberashh]

I never understood why people hated on THAC0 so much anyway.

Because its one of those things where you, as game designer, grok it so fundamentally it doesn't occur to you that its confusing as hell to a typical customer that hasn't already spent the time grasping the concept.

Put another way, its a mechanic that emphasizes system mastery but in a very negative way; mastery isn't desired because thats how you reach a higher level of play, but because the system is ridiculously confusing and you need that mastery just to play.

 

[Yaarel]

And it wasn't called 5th edition for the longest time too.

That is kinda a good point.

When did "fifth edition" show up on the back cover of the PHB?

Fair enough, but they really tried to avoid the phrase "fifth edition", and it was indies using "5e" as a circumlocution since the OGL prevented them from saying "D&D". WotC wanted it to be called "D&D" only, and moreorless pretend that it inherited all of the earlier editions − which in practice it kinda did.

 

[Yaarel]

My suspicions for 2024 ...

The designers genuinely want 5.0e.

But they will inevitably get 5.5e.

Even so, players will be able to use options from both 5.0 and 5.5 together at the same table, even for the same character sheet.

The amount of adjustment that a DM needs to make is no different from using options from Xanathars, Tashas, or Mordenkainen.

 

[codo]

That is kinda a good point.

From the start of the D&DNext playtests before 5e even came out they have been saying that are done with editions, and will just refer to it as D&D. They have been referring to the game as evergreen from the start. I know there was a quote from Mearls or maybe Crawford in one of old youtube videos where he lays it all out and says they will have a revised or updated books "every decade or two" just like Monopoly or Clue.

 

[Emberashh]

The thing about this evergreen shtick is that eventually stuff has to be deprecated.

Like, whatever, theres no editions anymore. But eventually you're going to have the effective equivalent of multiple editions all existing simultaneously, and this is going to cause problems if you keep asserting that its all cross compatible for no actual design reason.

And with the nature of how books work, deprecation is best done by...editions.

So unless they want to finally drop the charade and go fully digital (which makes what they want to do dramatically easier), all this evergreen talk is going to culminate in is a mess they'll eventually have to rectify by doing what they should be doing now.

 

[Faolyn]

'We are releasing new editions of the books,” Crawford emphasized. “We are not releasing a new edition of the game. And so that, I think, is a really important distinction — that it is still 5th edition, but yes, we are releasing revised versions of the books, which anywhere else in the publishing world would be called new editions.”"

Any thoughts?

Link:
D&D has a messaging problem that goes beyond the OGL controversy

I haven't read all 9 pages of the thread, in case someone has already said this, but my problem is that what they're saying sounds like they included errata, fixed typos, etc. Not that they made actual rules changes that could seriously change or possibly disrupt your game.

ETA: Which might also suggest you don't need to buy it, if you don't care about the errata or typoes.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The designers genuinely want 5.0e.

But they will inevitably get 5.5e.

I mean perhaps in the sense of each of them individually not wanting enough changes to merit a ".5" but once they all get their preferred tweaks it comes to a ".5". I can buy that as a possible explanation, but I think there must also be some contingent of the design team that very much wants a "5.5e" or even a "6e".

And for WotC as a business the sweet spot is obviously having it be similar and compatible enough that people readily buy a book or two to use alongside their 5e materials (rather than avoid it because they don't want to have to get a whole new set of books), but then gradually find everything just different or incompatible enough to bit by bit rebuy everything in a slightly remixed variation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because its one of those things where you, as game designer, grok it so fundamentally it doesn't occur to you that its confusing as hell to a typical customer that hasn't already spent the time grasping the concept.

Put another way, its a mechanic that emphasizes system mastery but in a very negative way; mastery isn't desired because thats how you reach a higher level of play, but because the system is ridiculously confusing and you need that mastery just to play.

Subtraction is confusing?

 

[Emberashh]

Subtraction is confusing?

I don't believe you're unaware of why people find THAC0 confusing so please drop this fake obtuseness you're putting on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't believe you're unaware of why people find THAC0 confusing so please drop this fake obtuseness you're putting on.

I just don't think it's all that confusing. Better than the class tables in the 1e DMG, and it still allows different classes to actually be better or worse at attacks, which 5e certainly doesn't do (nor did 4e before it, I believe).