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

[Umbran]

I think some have other motives or may simply be upset about the OGL still and now try to ‘get back’ at WotC

This was not directed at a particular poster, so I do not see it as personal.

Is saying something like ‘some people believe X’ personal? To me it is not

Mod Note:
It looks personal if, in context of the discussion, it reads like you mean "some people" are in this thread. Not naming names then looks like you are trying to dodge responsibility for the implication.

If that's not what you are trying to do, please think a bit harder about your posting, so you can better avoid the appearance.

If it is what you are trying to do, stop trying to do that, please.

 

[mamba]

so name them, if you can you are better than me

 

[mamba]

if agenda has such a bad connotation, maybe YOU shouldn't use it to describe what people are doing here on this board (that again in theory has an address the post not the poster rule)

hey, if they can draw conclusions and call something an agenda, so can I

 

[mamba]

so are you singling out 5 people to personally assign them an attack, what 5 by chance?

I did not count them, more than one, probably less than 10, I like 5, yes, chance, could have really been any number from 3 to 7, I chose 5 for no particular reason

 

[codo]

Honestly, for many people, yes. Dyscalculia is a thing.

Also, it's simply not as fast as addition is, even when dealing with numbers as small as are likely to be found at a gaming table.

You also get the fun addition of a +1 magic armor lowering your armor class. Nothing confusing there.

 

[deganawida]

Worth noting that WotC wanted to bring back Advanced Dungeons & Dragons for the core books in 2014...but discovered in market research that people were turned off by the "Advanced."

Would have been perfect, assuming they went with modularity, and had an actual basic and an actual advanced.

 

[Dire Bare]

Worth noting that WotC wanted to bring back Advanced Dungeons & Dragons for the core books in 2014...but discovered in market research that people were turned off by the "Advanced."

They did? I don't remember that at all.

 

[Parmandur]

Would have been perfect, assuming they went with modularity, and had an actual basic and an actual advanced.

Well, no, they found that potential customers hated it, so it would have been a terrible business decision...which it was in the 70's-90's, as well. They did release Basic, though, you can still download 5E Basic Rules.

They did? I don't remember that at all.

That's because they changed course once they did market research, so they didn't do "Advanced." Mearla talked about in several interviews, of an example of something the designers thought would be a fun retro thing that they discovered turned off customer, just like PHB2 or DMG 2 branding would.

 

[Azzy]

I believe that this is a new edition even if they say other words. You believe it is not. Neither of us have an agenda outside of talking about the games we all enjoy

It's a new "edition" depending on how you define the term. If you mean that the books are have a different typesetting, etc. (like the "black book" revised 2e core books compared to the initial 2e core books), then yes, it's a new edition. If you mean that they're an iteration of a previous edition (like 1e > 2e, 3.e > 3.5e), then yes, it's a new edition. If you mean an entirely different rule set (like 2e > 3e or 3.5e > 4e), then no, it's not a new edition. The term "edition" as applied to books has many definitions. Because TSR (and, later, WotC) have abused the term, the term has no standard meaning anymore.

So, yes, it's a new edition. Also, no, it's not a new edition. The hand-wringing on both sides of the "argument" is amusing, though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a new "edition" depending on how you define the term. If you mean that the books are have a different typesetting, etc. (like the "black book" revised 2e core books compared to the initial 2e core books), then yes, it's a new edition. If you mean that they're an iteration of a previous edition (like 1e > 2e, 3.e > 3.5e), then yes, it's a new edition. If you mean an entirely different rule set (like 2e > 3e or 3.5e > 4e), then no, it's not a new edition. The term "edition" as applied to books has many definitions. Because TSR (and, later, WotC) have abused the term, the term has no standard meaning anymore.

So, yes, it's a new edition. Also, no, it's not a new edition. The hand-wringing on both sides of the "argument" is amusing, though.

The issue I have with their definition is, they are not differentiating it from 5.0, which means it will all be jumbled together for buyers and sellers of 3pp, which since there are measurable differences, will be confusing.