Jeremy Crawford: “We are releasing new editions of the books”

Status
Not open for further replies.

Pedantic

Legend
so? Because back then they decided to call it a new edition means they need to now? At most that makes their use inconsistent, which is not exactly news…
Well, yes. That was a big enough change that we wanted to talk about the game was different before/after the event, and this is about as big, so I expect the same. The publisher set the precedent for how we do those discussions previously, with the .5 edition model. Why would we not use that now? I'm unpersuaded by the argument WotC seems to be making, which is "don't talk about this in before/after terms."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Hero
Would you feel that way […] if you weren't feeling generally positive about the changes WotC has made in recent years and moving forward to 5e? Your irritation with public commentary, I suspect, has a lot to do with you liking what you're currently getting.
yes, I would find the whole ‘this is a new edition / no it is not’ annoying regardless

Other people don't, or are at least unsure. We all deserve respect for our feelings and concerns, whether you think so or not.
yes, they do, both sides do
 

mamba

Hero
You missed the point that what remains aside from whats actually being changed doesn't make for a game in of itself, so it isn't worthwhile information to base a conclusion on, which is what you and others have been doing by asserting those unchanged aspects as indicators that 1DND is not a new edition.

If the parts of the game that actually make it playable are being significantly changed, well beyond the changes representative of mere errata, then it is in fact a new edition.
to me what makes something a new edition is more about whether the two are compatible and not about how many things changed vs stayed the same
 

mamba

Hero
Well, yes. That was a big enough change that we wanted to talk about the game was different before/after the event, and this is about as big, so I expect the same.
you can do so, they are called the 2014 vs 2024 versions for a reason ;)

The publisher set the precedent for how we do those discussions previously, with the .5 edition model. Why would we not use that now?
because they do not do so this time… As to precedent, we have a whole lot of inconsistent precedent about what is and isn’t a new edition. The only thing that is consistent is that WotC decided what it was
 


codo

Hero
Well, yes. That was a big enough change that we wanted to talk about the game was different before/after the event, and this is about as big, so I expect the same. The publisher set the precedent for how we do those discussions previously, with the .5 edition model. Why would we not use that now? I'm unpersuaded by the argument WotC seems to be making, which is "don't talk about this in before/after terms."
WotC used the .5 edition model once over 20 years ago. Why should that be the default naming convention? There have been over a dozen different "Editions" of d&d so far, why should the naming convention from 2003 be the default. Why not use 6E? The changes from 1e to 2e where very similar in scope to 5e and OneD&D. You could also call it 5E essentials. The 4e to essential change was also of a similar scope to 5e and OneD&D.

We need to face the fact that D&D has never used a consistent naming scheme, and there really isn't a naming convention that really makes any more sense than any other.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I would be willing to bet that the reason that a .5 edition makes sense to you, is that you were a teenager or in your early 20's when 3.5 came out. Am I correct? What ever you experienced as a teenager will always be the default to you.
 

Pedantic

Legend
you can do so, they are called the 2014 vs 2024 versions for a reason ;)
I'm not opposed to a date based model for "minor editions" but I don't think it's going to stick if we're still having discussions that encompass multiple editions. Frankly, "5e (2024)" or "2024 5e" is just a longer and clunkier term than 5.5, which is why my money's on that one settling down as the norm.

The thing I'm objecting to is WotC's framing that's suggesting we won't be talking about 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 as separate entities. Of course we will. Someone is going to start a thread a year two years from now saying that a 2014 rogue is like Y, and a 2024 rogue is like Z and either bemoan the change as a travesty of game design, or a brilliant innovation, and someone else will chime in that they're keeping the 2014 version in their game, and someone else will be sad they can't do the thing they used to do with their rogues, because all the DMs just use the 2024 version these days.

WotC's pushing for us to round this down closer to errata and less like 3e vs. 3.5 ranger discussions, and that's unlikely, and a little disingenuous. I don't really understand why there's a push to support that rhetoric, both because I think it's pretty pointless, and because I don't see what the benefit for anyone other than WotC's marketing push is.
 

codo

Hero
I'm not opposed to a date based model for "minor editions" but I don't think it's going to stick if we're still having discussions that encompass multiple editions. Frankly, "5e (2024)" or "2024 5e" is just a longer and clunkier term than 5.5, which is why my money's on that one settling down as the norm.

The thing I'm objecting to is WotC's framing that's suggesting we won't be talking about 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 as separate entities. Of course we will. Someone is going to start a thread a year two years from now saying that a 2014 rogue is like Y, and a 2024 rogue is like Z and either bemoan the change as a travesty of game design, or a brilliant innovation, and someone else will chime in that they're keeping the 2014 version in their game, and someone else will be sad they can't do the thing they used to do with their rogues, because all the DMs just use the 2024 version these days.

WotC's pushing for us to round this down closer to errata and less like 3e vs. 3.5 ranger discussions, and that's unlikely, and a little disingenuous. I don't really understand why there's a push to support that rhetoric, both because I think it's pretty pointless, and because I don't see what the benefit for anyone other than WotC's marketing push is.
You need to remember that we are a tiny minority of players who actually go online to discuss D&D. The vast majority of players just show up and play the game. They are not constantly discussing the game online like we are on this forum.

It is just not an issues for most groups, because they are not going to be discussing the game or comparing it to other editions. They will just make a character from a book they have and play the game. Once their session is done, other than maybe leveling up, most players won't really even think about or discuss their game with other people.

It really is a nonissue. Most players won't even notice. Those who do notice are those like us, who hobby is discussing d&d, and not just playing it. For players like us who are chronically online discussing D&D, we are informed and savvy enough to not be confused by the different versions.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
I'm not opposed to a date based model for "minor editions" but I don't think it's going to stick if we're still having discussions that encompass multiple editions. Frankly, "5e (2024)" or "2024 5e" is just a longer and clunkier term than 5.5, which is why my money's on that one settling down as the norm.

The thing I'm objecting to is WotC's framing that's suggesting we won't be talking about 5e 2014, and 5e 2024 as separate entities. Of course we will. Someone is going to start a thread a year two years from now saying that a 2014 rogue is like Y, and a 2024 rogue is like Z and either bemoan the change as a travesty of game design, or a brilliant innovation, and someone else will chime in that they're keeping the 2014 version in their game, and someone else will be sad they can't do the thing they used to do with their rogues, because all the DMs just use the 2024 version these days.

WotC's pushing for us to round this down closer to errata and less like 3e vs. 3.5 ranger discussions, and that's unlikely, and a little disingenuous. I don't really understand why there's a push to support that rhetoric, both because I think it's pretty pointless, and because I don't see what the benefit for anyone other than WotC's marketing push is.
WotC's marketing push is the  entire reason they're doing it, as far as I can tell.
 

I think this issue right here is a  large point of divergence, and the source of a lot of misunderstanding and acrimony.

Strictly speaking if the system is still ultimately d20 then everything under it is cross compatible. This is what I was getting at with my post; d20 itself isn't a game, and its d20 that people are referring to when they point at things like the resolution system or skills being the same, and thus 1DND is "not" a new edition.

Which, of course, doesn't really follow unless one takes to the logic that updates to the SRD/OGL are what mark new editions. But even then, I could easily make the argument that the move to Creative Commons made such a change.

And meanwhile, the compatibility between different sets of content isn't even whats being argued by the people who assert this isn't a new edition.

Remember, the logic being used here is that because the underlying system isn't changing, its not a new edition, no matter how extensive the changes in content are. But that logic doesn't follow, and falls apart even when given the benefit of the doubt.

Ultimately, though, one also just has to consider what precisely is the hesitation towards accepting 1DND as a new edition. We know what WOTCs hesitation is, and that, if nothing else, is understandable.

I don't recall seeing anyone in this topic expressing why they don't want 1DND called a new edition, nor for that matter why itd be such an issue for them if it was.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top