Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8985887" data-attributes="member: 18">Those are obviously wildly impractical and the result of desperately trying to not identify this as a new edition, rather than a serious attempt to be helpful or come up with a name.They're far too long to use, verbally and in text - because WotC isn't serious about using them. They're essentially placeholders whilst they try and figure out if they can "make fetch happen" and convince everyone to refer to the new edition as just "D&D". History relates that they will not be able to, but as we saw with the OGL, just because something is obviously stupid, that is absolutely not going to stop WotC trying it!Furthermore, they don't address the actual issue we're discussing, which is that, by the standards of most other RPGs, and most editions of D&D, this is absolutely an edition-level change, and trying to say it isn't is pure PR of a cheap and unhelpful kind.This is correct, and it's absolutely not a reasonable position to say it's "not an edition" and "not a X.5", because their logic was absolutely offensively false. As a fellow neurodiverse person you should be able to appreciate that using offensively bad logic as obvious PR is quite triggering for some of us. By WotC's logic most recently expressed, then they shouldn't have called 3.5E anything, and 2E shouldn't have been called anything either. But by the real use of the term "edition", over the last 50 years of RPGs, this is an absolutely an edition, and so was 2E - hell for some games, 3.5E would have just been 4E. Likely the only reason it wasn't was PR.It's actively unhelpful to their cause to behave this way.Even if we take the most positive spin on what you're claiming, they're attempting disingenuous manipulation, rather than being honest and simply saying "Yeah, it's comparable to the 1E > 2E change, but we'd prefer not to refer to it that way". Instead we get dishonest claims like it's "not even a change like 3.5E", which just absolutely untenable as claim on any level whatsoever. That's not how you act if you want to transparently work with the community.Yet you are engaging in exactly that an unhelpful way by suggesting we adopt obviously unusable terminology merely because WotC liked it this week. Will they like those terms in six month? A year? Hard to say. If they can stop lying about previous editions, and come up with a sensible, very short acronym, then we can work with that. It has to be them, if they want it to stick - otherwise it'll be the community, and the community has picked "variants of 1D&D" as the name. Nothing they've said so far will change that.What's funny is D&D2024/DND2024 was kind of popular when the edition was purely theoretical, but instead of calling it that, WotC introduced the 1D&D branding, and hard-associated it with the new edition. If they intended not to, they screwed up completely - you can see on reddit for example, how quickly that became the new name (whether expressed as 1D&D, 1dnd, OneDnd or whatever).You're encouraging edition warring, frankly, with your patronising and somewhat contemptuous tone in your post towards anyone who is not 100% on board with you (the one I'm quoting from). If you don't mean to be patronising or sneer, you language is ill-chosen and should be reconsidered. Your "piss off and play other games if you disagree with me" attitude is not the one of a peacemaker. Again, I get you're also neurodiverse, so maybe you've screwed up here, but you are not achieving your goals if so.</blockquote>

Verification