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

[codo]

The book Empire of Imagination has a quote from Gygax about this on page 197. It discussed 2e as being a costly revision to the game's mechanics, which after the result failed to sell as well as TSR hoped Gygax was quoted as saying "to save 2.5 percent they wrecked the company", so it doesn't sound like he received royalties from the 2e era products.

All of TSR naming decisions for their various editions has mostly been based around screwing other authors out of their share of the credit and royalties. Including when Gary created Advanced D&D to screw over Dave Arneson.

TSR created some great games, but it was basically a-holes all the way down. Nobody should be looking to early D&D for examples of honesty and good leadership.

 

[codo]

They could just slap a 5 cent sticker on adventure books saying "compatible with 6e".

Or alternatively could just update those books to be system (or at least edition) agnostic, which would open up the market for the material anyway.

That isn't going to help with the 5e books people already own. It also seems like a lot of hoops to jump through when they could just call it 5e and not have to do anything.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Because after 10 years they see some rough patches and want to update them, while still using the same core rule and being compatible with all of the 5e books and adventures they have already released. D&D naming conventions have never been consistant for 50 years. What ever name they choose will cause some confusion, because they have never used the same system twice.

Honestly just sticking with 5e is probably going to cause the least amount of confusion of any name they could choose. Calling it 5.5, or 6e, or what ever else they could come up with, would actually cause more confusion and lead people to believe that the old 5e adventures are not compatible with the new version.

Agreed. I would much rather they continue to call it 5E and keep with the backwards compatibility (meaning useability) of the 2014 content. I believe there is clarity in this effort, and it is a worthy effort, as it helps all 3rd parties who have already contributed to the 5E-compatible design environment.

Regarding the position of some who demand that an official naming convention change must occur, even if it would cause chaos, those positions value personal preferences and proclivities, over the stability of the game. I understand the desire, but I don't value those preferences more than the stability of the 5E Publishing Community.

And separately, for those who want a clean break from Wizards, they can just break themselves free and keep playing a perfectly valid 2014 D&D, Level Up, or ToV, or any other RPG out there that suits their fancy, rather than cause chaos on the way out.

When 2026 comes around, people will still be playing the same adventures from all 5E-clone-compatible releases out there. The D&D 2024 rules will be as compatible as Level Up and ToV, and others. Sure there will be some "Legacy" content, but the game is just growing and being refined, not changed to be unrecognizable. In the long run, I think we'll have a stronger D&D game and strong D&D clones in the industry, each with passionate fans that can borrow ideas from other compatible publishers.

I think this era will one day be the subject of academia and historical debate. Just like every debate that has come before.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Why does this matter? It's because a lot of us are considering whether or not we're buying new books. Ironically, for me, the people who are saying "it's the same!" are also the ones most on board with the changes. They're making the argument for me not buying new books, and that doesn't fit with what they seem to want.

I guess this is where I'm utterly confused on the discourse. Why does if it is a new edition or not matter for if you buy the books?

I didn't buy Tasha's because it was a new edition of the game. I bought it because I wanted the rules in it, I liked the rules I saw previews of. I've bought Matt Colville's rules because I like them (even if I need to change them fairly consistently) not because they are official DnD 5e products.

So... why does the decision for buying the 2024 books rest on whether or not they are a new edition? Shouldn't it rest on whether or not you like the rule changes being presented and the direction they are going?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Plenty of people have expressed why we don't want 1D&D called a new edition. Mostly because a new edition implies that the old book are not combatable with the new one. If you can run a 1D&D adventure using 5e books, it is not a new edition. If you can run a 5e adventure using the 1D&D book it is not a new edition. WotC has been emphatically stating from the start that 1D&D is backwards compatible, and It sure looks like it will be.

Do you see any problem with running an old 5e adventure path with the new 1D&D rules? I sure don't, so not a new edition.

Because adventure paths do not an edition make?

 

[Micah Sweet]

And if anything that decision probably had more to do with not paying Gary Gygax royalties than anything else.

And WotC's decision here is also financially motivated. That's how these things go.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It has saving throws just different labels on them... I bet ANYONE looking for what to roll against a fire ball and doesn't see Ref save but sees Dex save can figure that out.?

Are you sure. Some people freak out because pact cantrips are called warlock cantrips and they can't figure out that 2014 warlocks can't chose them.

Speaking of that. Some people are totally confused, because they can't tell the difference between 2014 and 2024 handbook if there is no 6e lable on the latter.

The same people are also totally lost when a 2014 subclass gets their ability on a different level.

I thought anyone (edited) can figure that out too, but I was proven wrong.

 

[codo]

And WotC's decision here is also financially motivated. That's how these things go.

Why is a company doing something for financially motivated reasons so offensive to you? Why is it such a bad idea that a company chooses to do something to make money? That is literally the reason businesses exist in the first place. If they don't make money, the go out of business and all of their employees loose there jobs.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think one big problem with discussing what/if this is a new edition comes from the history of the game where a new edition can mean very different things. I've written that I think so far this is a ".5" edition.

... Keep in mind that it's not like there's a tradition for "Point Whatever" editions. In all the TWENTY-or-so times the rules have been updated for D&D, "point-five" was used ONCE to name it. The rest has been people stubbornly trying to use it for versions SINCE THEN that WotC decided to label something else.

This game WILL have a name. It's just not being marketed yet, so it doesn't need one. Right now, the playtest is called OneD&D, which is fine for what it is, if not great, but it's not going to be the name going forward. Anyone who's overly worried about what it's going to be called is, to be frank, being impatient. When they roll out the marketing, it'll have something to differentiate it from 2014 D&D 5e. Even if all that is is 2024 D&D 5e. (Though I maintain that it will probably be "50th Anniversary Dungeons & Dragons".

We will know either around Christmas, or sometime into the new year.

 

[Velderan]

And WotC's decision here is also financially motivated. That's how these things go.

Yeah, but WotC isn't releasing new books to avoid giving Jeremy Crawford some money they agreed to pay him for the previous books that they'll get out of by discontinuing them.

I'm sure part of the motive for TSR releasing 2e was creating an uptick in book sales, but it also was to shed the 2.5% apparently Gygax was owed per book sold.