D&D (2024) So IS it a new edition?

[Corinnguard]

But, of course, it is easy to be confident that one's preferences will be widely shared, yes?

Yeah. Afraid so. Especially when several others have reinforced that preference by bringing up their own preferences. It's how trends start.

 

[mamba]

And I'm of the opinion that "5.5e" is significantly more compatible with the things your alleged "'mainstream' audience" would know and understand, while "2024 D&D" is not.

that feels patently untrue

Remember when Microsoft swore up and down that Windows 10 would be the eternal one? That's why they skipped over naming it the number 9 (even though it is, internally, version 9.x), because the new version would be forever and calling the 9th version the forever version felt off to them?

And now we're only a year out from Windows 10 end-of-life, with Windows 11 being a mildly controversial but relatively accepted platform.

Win 11 is only a slightly updated Win 10, there is no reason why it could not have been another service pack - apart from MS missing out on money for the upgrades. Not a good example for why a version cannot last

 

[Remathilis]

Sure--but it could be more efficient. I don't care for "5ER" because "ER" does not have a conventional meaning. "5.5e," on the other hand, clearly draws on the conventional meaning. But I would not be upset if they consistently called it that, it just would not be to my preference.

Instead, they keep loudly insisting it is "2024 D&D." I have about the same feeling toward this as I do toward the naming of the game which preceded DOOM Eternal. That is, it is just called "DOOM." Now, don't get me wrong, I think that that game is great (which is very weird for me, I'm not normally much one for DOOM-style games)--but it adds unnecessary confusion. The industry has seemingly collectively agreed to call it "DOOM (2016)", but this is clearly awkward and less-than-desirable. It would have been better if they'd stuck with the original name (DOOM 4) or picked a subtitle to distinguish it (such as DOOM Reborn or the like). Naturally, I would have preferred the simplicity of a numbered entry, since that's really what it is (there are even internal references to the "third era" and such which clearly call out prior games in the series, indicating the Doomguy has traversed space and time and in some way "been" every version the player has played.) But I would have accepted at least a subtitle, especially given it will soon be flanked by both a sequel and an upcoming prequel, DOOM: The Dark Ages.

It just seems really really clear to me that WotC is avoiding a clearer, simpler, more specific name because they're afraid of the implications the audience will draw from that name. I genuinely do not believe that anyone on the team actually prefers this nomenclature over something simpler and more consistent with the game's history.

Heh. If you think DOOM is bad, try explaining Mortal Kombat (1994), Mortal Kombat (2011) and Mortal Kombat 1.

 

[Oofta]

that feels patently untrue


Win 11 is only a slightly updated Win 10, there is no reason why it could not have been another service pack - apart from MS missing out on money for the upgrades. Not a good example for why a version cannot last

While also including an unnecessary hardware upgrade to make older PCs incompatible with the Windows 11 so people will be forced to abandon perfectly functional PCs next year.

 

[Oofta]

I doubt that. I suspect that they went over all the ways that they could call it, and settled on this as communicating what they wanted most to communicate. I really don't think that it's quite as nefarious as all that.

Again, us "hardcore" D&D nerds are very attached to the messy naming conventions of the past, but the "mainstream" audience that D&D has picked up is not - and the one that they're looking for in the future is also not.

In this case, I don't even think that it's a lack of respect for the hardcore gamer market. I think that they rightly believe that we can figure it out.

And once they're off the "edition" bandwagon (as it's been used in the past) they can revise the game, when it's appropriate, without as much of the baggage as we've had up until now.

I think that they were right when they tried last time to NOT call it 5e, but it didn't take that time. If they keep trying, they might pull it off. Or not. I guess we'll see.

I actually have some empathy for them trying to come up with a label. They are retaining a fair amount of backward compatibility of rules. You'll be able to use old modules, anything that hasn't been directly replaced will still be usable. To be much more backwards compatible there wouldn't be any changes to the rules that wouldn't have been considered errata in past versions. Some people still would have complained about even that.

So they're stuck. They can't ignore the 5E label, but they need to make it clear that things have changed for grandma who's picking up the game for little Timmy. There's really no reason to stick with the ".5" label that was used once over the course of the 50 years of D&D. It's certainly not anything near the compatibility breaking changes of 2E to 3E to 4E to 5E (or PF 1E to PF 2E for that matter). It's largely the same game with a new coat of paint and a few upgrades under the hood akin to the changing model year of cars.

But trying to make this label change "nefarious", "lazy", "misleading" or any other pejorative people can think of just doesn't hold any weight for me. They had to make a decision and there wasn't a great option. There were basically two options. The vast majority of people don't know or care about 3 and 3.5 and don't understand how software revisions are labeled. Putting 2024 Revised edition on the label is clearer for new customers.

Put 5.5 on the label and the casual customer that you want because that's how the hobby stays healthy is potentially confused. Is this just an add-on? Is this just an add-on to 5th edition and if so, where do I get that version? Last, but not least, it keeps things open for potential revisions that are on a similar scale so someday we may have the 2034 Revised Edition label. I think the 5E label was needed because it was such a clear break from 4E. But for this revision? It's as good as anything else.

 

[FrogReaver]

Other ways I could say the same thing, all of which are about the game and not what constitutes an "edition" in the book trade:

• It feels like more and newer 5e stuff

I don’t think so. It feels like similar to 5e stuff, but different.

Evolution, not revolution

New editions need not be marked by revolution. Most new editions of most games are relatively minor updates.

A new iteration of 5e, not a new iteration of D&D

A new iteration of 5e is a new iteration of d&d.

 

[Greg Benage]

A new iteration of 5e is a new iteration of d&d.

I'd bet just about anything you understand exactly the distinction I'm making.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd bet just about anything you understand exactly the distinction I'm making.

I get you think there is one, but there really isn’t one.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing is

No one would call this book 6e

If you aren't willing to increase the number, then it isn't a new edition.

 

[Corinnguard]

The thing is

No one would call this book 6e

If you aren't willing to increase the number, then it isn't a new edition.

That's probably because we're all expecting a 6e to make its' debut several years from now.