D&D (2024) Reworked…revised…redone….but

[mamba]

They chose not to call it a new edition so that people wouldn't stop buying their books. That's the definition of a marketing reason, and not labeling clearly different things differently is a negative for me.

they have chosen to have compatibility with 2014 so they can keep selling books. Not calling it a new edition seems like a logical conclusion based on that decision

 

[Parmandur]

The whole "if someone at the table is using 2014 5E rules, PCs etc, but some features appear in 2024 5E then they need to use those rules" just seems odd to me, and more trouble than it's worth. If I was DMing a 2024 5E game, I would tell people either were using those rules or I'm not playing. I'm not going through the trouble of mix and matching portions of two versions of the "same" edition.

Using a 2014 PC at a 2024 table is not any extra work for anyone...?

 

[Theory of Games]

they have chosen to have compatibility with 2014 so they can keep selling books. Not calling it a new edition seems like a logical conclusion based on that decision

Hasbro wants to keep the 5e playerbase so of course, as they shift from tabletop to video, WotC offers backward compatibility. They need to make the coming transition as easy as possible for as many players as possible.

 

[R_J_K75]

Using a 2014 PC at a 2024 table is not any extra work for anyone...?

IME there are 2 types of players, those that take the time to read the PHB and are familiar with what their PCs abilities are, and then there's those that don't. Mostly nowadays for me it's the latter. In that case it would cause me as the DM extra prep work and more time of either me or the player looking stuff up at the table.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

IME there are 2 types of players,

Well, IME there are two types of players as well.

1. Those who are good, pleasant, and generally excellent to each other and the DM.
2. Those who play Bards.
3. The innumerate.

 

[R_J_K75]

2. Those who play Bards.

So Chris Pine

 

[R_J_K75]

3. The innumerate.

Sure, there are those that have trouble remembering rules, have trouble understanding or implementing them in in play. I have never that I can remember have had a player tell me screw you I don't need to read or know the rules, it's more of a matter that outside of game time they have other responsibilities that prevents them from doing so.

The only time I recall was a player volunteered to DM and then showed up completely unprepared with 6 other people expecting to play. Trust me I gave him the business; I ended up having to DM that day. I don't think he came back again.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think the lesser of two evils is to rename it 5.5 or 6th but either way a certain percentage would get pissed.

I think with the approach they took there is no easy answer

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree 100%. As I've said many times before in the past couple years, I'd have preferred 6E. It may work and I'm sure many people will embrace the backwards compatibly, but I think it was a strange design choice and, with choosing not to give the two versions distinctly different names will only cause confusion. But in their defense no matter what they did, whether that being creating a new edition or going this current route they were bound to alienate and lose fans and players.

In that case, err on the side of logic. Give different things different names.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a DM, at your table, you are God. So well within your rights to run the game how you see fit. This can all be worked out at a session zero.

What does that have to do with the idea that different things should be named differently?