D&D (2024) Jeremy Crawford discusses what are the 2024 Fitfh Edition Core Rulebooks.

Status
Not open for further replies.

mamba

Legend
This is just defending a marketing campaign with completely unnecessary fervor.
or it is attacking a marketing campaign with unnecessary fervor… I find it telling that several of those doing the attacking do not even play 5e

I’d much rather people focus on discussing the changes than whether the changes constitute an edition change. The latter is just pointless bickering and accomplishes nothing.

We’ve had hundreds of posts on this in dozens of threads, arguing back and forth, do you think any of them changed anything at all?
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

HammerMan

Legend
Sure, we can define it any way we want. But we should understand that the way that WotC have used it previously (as a new rule set that isn't compatible with the previous edition) informs why they are not calling this a new edition, but instead a revision.
Yest 3.5 was an edition change from 3e
 


And we saw how that went.

Sure, but one book had been out less than 3 years, this one will have been out more than 10. That probably played a disproportionate part of that response. The context of what this could have been (or could be, I suppose, given that we aren't to the end of it yet), I don't think that example comes off as a good one.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
or it is attacking a marketing campaign with unnecessary fervor…
How many people not buying into the marketing are showing 'fervor' beyond making fun of it?
I find it telling that several of those doing the attacking do not even play 5e
On the other hand, what is the purpose behind aggressions and insinuations like this?
I’d much rather people focus on discussing the changes than whether the changes constitute an edition change. The latter is just pointless bickering and accomplishes nothing.
We’ve has hundreds of posts on this in dozens of threads, arguing back and forth, do you think any of them changed anything at all?
The discussion might stop sooner without conspiracy theories about people having an 'agenda' behind making fun of or questioning bad marketing.
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Sure, but one book had been out less than 3 years, this one will have been out more than 10. That probably played a disproportionate part of that response. The context of what this could have been (or could be, I suppose, given that we aren't to the end of it yet), I don't think that example comes off as a good one.
On the other hand, when 3.5e came out, retailers were stuck with a bunch of back stock of 3e 3PP as they were perceived by D&D community as not compatible (regardless of whether that was true or not). Also, 3.5e was a "half" edition change (as opposed to 2e→3e, 3e→4e, 4e→5e), so my point about why WotC isn't calling this 6e stands—it's not a clean break (thankfully). Calling it 5.5e is not in their best interest either if they want to keep iterating on the 5e chassis in the future (if anything, 5.1e, 5.2e, or whatever would be more accurate).
 

mamba

Legend
How many people not buying into the marketing are showing 'fervor' beyond making fun of it?
pretty much all the ones constantly posting about it here.

None of them sound the least bit like they are making fun, and all of them post too frequently for someone who just wants to do so. They post frequently enough that I think calling it fervor is justified.

I don’t buy the ‘making fun’ bit, it is so implausible that I don’t think you believe that either

On the other hand, what is the purpose behind aggressions and insinuations like this?
stating a fact is an aggression?

The discussion might stop sooner without conspiracy theories about people having an 'agenda' behind making fun of or questioning bad marketing.
I doubt it, it hasn’t stopped yet and me saying something like this is pretty new ;)

Also, people are saying they are not playing 5e, yet they participate in this. You make of it what you will.

If I didn’t play I wouldn’t care what it is called. Heck, I play and I do not care…
 
Last edited:

Chaosmancer

Legend
We are all welcome to define a ‘game edition’ however we want. There is no official definition and you, me, WotC, or anyone here doesn’t own the term.

We are allowed to disagree with a corporation’s position on something. We are not employees, we’re fans.

This isn't just directed at you @HammerMan , but also @Justice and Rule , @Vaalingrade , @Charlaquin, @Blue and the others who I know this isn't going to convince in the slightest.

Yes, you are allowed to disagree with a corporation's position on something. But "the product we are selling" is generally not considered a "position". In fact, the only place I see this is in the TTRPG space. I have never once even imagined McDonald's announcing their new fries, and McDonald's fans saying "No, see I've read the subtext of their announcement, and really, they aren't selling fries. That's marketing spin, they are actually going to be selling Hash Browns. They just want you to think it is fries, because fries sell better and they don't care about the art of food, they just want to make money."

Or that a truck isn't REALLY a truck, because as a consumer you have a different definition of truck, and that vehicle is an SUV not a truck by your definition.

Or any of a dozen other things that keep boiling down to "I know better than the people making and selling the product what this product really is." Even those of you who claim not to care, absolutely have a rock-hard position that you MUST be right that this is 5.5 or 6e, and cannot possibly be anything else. Because you KNOW better.

And honestly, I wouldn't care, except they just had to release ANOTHER video, with nearly 10 minutes of it devoted to YET AGAIN addressing this issue. And then they did an announcement, and even Morrus basically said "them announcing this again isn't news". And at the rate things are going? I can expect ANOTHER video explaining this, YET AGAIN, followed by ANOTHER article repeating it YET AGAIN, and probably when they do the cover reveals they will explain it YET AGAIN... and I'm tired of it. Because it feels like a waste of my time for them to constantly have to repeat themselves, again and again and again, because you people insist you are too smart and too cunning to fall for their lies. That you know exactly what the product is, and it isn't what they, the people actually designing, marketing and selling it, say it is.

If McDonald's says they are selling fries, they are likely selling fries. I don't care that you've never seen a waffle fry before and therefore can't accept it is a fry and not a hashbrown. That doesn't mean the company is lying.
 

HammerMan

Legend
If McDonald's says they are selling fries, they are likely selling fries. I don't care that you've never seen a waffle fry before and therefore can't accept it is a fry and not a hashbrown. That doesn't mean the company is lying.
If McDonald’s says they aren’t changing their fries they are the same fries BUT they are making them out of tofu I think you WOULD see them called out.

Edit: wait the impossible whopper is a perfect example. Plenty of people got mad and said it’s not a whopper of there is no meat.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
This isn't just directed at you @HammerMan , but also @Justice and Rule , @Vaalingrade , @Charlaquin, @Blue and the others who I know this isn't going to convince in the slightest.

Yes, you are allowed to disagree with a corporation's position on something. But "the product we are selling" is generally not considered a "position". In fact, the only place I see this is in the TTRPG space. I have never once even imagined McDonald's announcing their new fries, and McDonald's fans saying "No, see I've read the subtext of their announcement, and really, they aren't selling fries. That's marketing spin, they are actually going to be selling Hash Browns. They just want you to think it is fries, because fries sell better and they don't care about the art of food, they just want to make money."
That’s because status of being fries is far more cut and dried than the status of being an edition of an RPG. Many different sorts of products have been released under the label of “edition.” A more apt analogy might be if McDonalds announced new “chips,” and American customers responded that they clearly aren’t chips, they’re fries.
Or that a truck isn't REALLY a truck, because as a consumer you have a different definition of truck, and that vehicle is an SUV not a truck by your definition.
The difference between a truck and an SUV is absolutely a thing people will argue about, and if a company were to release a product that straddled the line between the two, I would fully expect car enthusiasts to argue about whether the manufacturer chose the correct label.
Or any of a dozen other things that keep boiling down to "I know better than the people making and selling the product what this product really is." Even those of you who claim not to care, absolutely have a rock-hard position that you MUST be right that this is 5.5 or 6e, and cannot possibly be anything else. Because you KNOW better.
Don’t put words in my mouth (err… fingers?) please. I do not have any such position. I’ve been using the term “2024 rules” myself since well before WotC said that was the term they were using internally, because I don’t think whether or not it’s an edition matters in the slightest, and “the 2024 rules” is an accurate description that avoids the apparently controversial term in question. I am simply saying that no amount of clarification on WotC’s part is going to sway the people who do see this as a change of edition, because lack of clarity is not the reason they see it so. They know what it is, because WotC has been showing it to us. They do not think “a continuation of the current edition” accurately describes what they’re seeing.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top