Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9431248" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I fundamentally disagree. &quot;This is D&amp;D in the Year of Our Lord 2024&quot; is not, at all, the same as saying, &quot;This is the mid-revision of the fifth version of the rules.&quot; The former lays claim to the entirety of the legacy--tacking the year on does not recognize the steps it took to get here nor the history. The latter makes clear that it is simply the current iteration.The fact that this is happening to the 50th anniversary edition is particularly galling. Like, this is supposed to be ABOUT recognizing and celebrating the history and past. Yet the naming could barely be working harder to pretend no such past existed.Let me put it this way: What do we do when an actual 6th edition comes along? We can't just call this &quot;2024 D&amp;D&quot; anymore. That would be inaccurate--it wouldn't be the same game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9431248, member: 6790260"] I fundamentally disagree. "This is D&D in the Year of Our Lord 2024" is not, at all, the same as saying, "This is the mid-revision of the fifth version of the rules." The former lays claim to the entirety of the legacy--tacking the year on does not recognize the steps it took to get here nor the history. The latter makes clear that it is simply the current iteration. The fact that this is happening [I]to the 50th anniversary edition[/I] is particularly galling. Like, this is supposed to be ABOUT recognizing and celebrating the history and past. Yet the naming could barely be working harder to pretend no such past existed. Let me put it this way: What do we do when an [I]actual[/I] 6th edition comes along? We can't just call this "2024 D&D" anymore. That would be inaccurate--it wouldn't be the same game. [/QUOTE]

Verification