The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Alzrius]

WotC's pivot about OneD&D just being 5E, in terms of its designation in popular discourse, has done a disservice to the community insofar as discussing the game goes. If we accept that the 2024 iteration will be different from its 2014 counterpart (regardless of how different it may or may not be), then we need a separate term by which to refer to it; ideally a widely-recognized term whose definition is understood by everyone using it.

Insisting on using the same term for different things might be good for marketing, but it makes discussion all that much harder, and given how little development we've had in terms of talking about what RPGs are and how they work (which is a lot of what Jon Peterson's The Elusive Shift is about), I feel like we're all ever-so-slightly worse off for it.

 

[CleverNickName]

WotC's pivot about OneD&D just being 5E, in terms of its designation in popular discourse, has done a disservice to the community insofar as discussing the game goes. If we accept that the 2024 iteration will be different from its 2014 counterpart (regardless of how different it may or may not be), then we need a separate term by which to refer to it; ideally a widely-recognized term whose definition is understood by everyone using it.

I'm not sure it's really a "pivot," though. WotC has claimed all along that it wasn't going to be a new edition, 5E is "evergreen," etc., and lots of people (myself included) didn't believe them.

Your point stands, though: I'm not going to be adopting most of these OneD&D changes, and I'll need a way to stay consistent between my older players and any newcomers to the group.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm not sure it's really a "pivot," though. WotC has claimed all along that it wasn't going to be a new edition, 5E is "evergreen," etc., and lots of people (myself included) didn't believe them.

I just mean in terms of nomenclature. I'm glad they at least initially called it "One D&D," even if that name was very clearly only ever meant to be a placeholder (much like "D&D Next"), but since then they've turned around and indicated that no placeholder is necessary, because there's no new designation for the 2024 iteration of the game, which is going to make comparing and contrasting it with the 2014 version that much harder to talk about. (Granted, it won't be that much harder, but it's an invitation to confusion and misunderstandings that could have been easily avoided, and was instead embraced purely for marketing, i.e. to their benefit and our detriment.)

 

[payn]

I just mean in terms of nomenclature. I'm glad they at least initially called it "One D&D," even if that name was very clearly only ever meant to be a placeholder (much like "D&D Next"), but since then they've turned around and indicated that no placeholder is necessary, because there's no new designation for the 2024 iteration of the game, which is going to make comparing and contrasting it with the 2014 version that much harder to talk about. (Granted, it won't be that much harder, but it's an invitation to confusion and misunderstandings that could have been easily avoided, and was instead embraced purely for marketing, i.e. to their benefit and our detriment.)

I believe this was only momentary, and is well on its way to being not a problem. Folks that are positive or dont care seem to be using 5E 2024. Those that are suspect and/or negative are leaning 5.5E. Pretty much tracks with everything that has happened before.

 

[trappedslider]

if that person posted more often i'd have them on ignore

 

[Alzrius]

I believe this was only momentary, and is well on its way to being not a problem. Folks that are positive or dont care seem to be using 5E 2024. Those that are suspect and/or negative are leaning 5.5E. Pretty much tracks with everything that has happened before.

Not much of a problem, sure. But I'd still like to have a single, consensus name for the upcoming version of the game, just because not having one is an inconvenience that doesn't need to be there. It's like a pebble in your shoe, minor but irritating.

 

[Deset Gled]

Those that are suspect and/or negative are leaning 5.5E.

Side rant: The "X.5" notation was ridiculous in 3.5e, and even worse now. In versioning notation, the dot is a demarcator, not a decimal. It's 5.1e, because it's the first revision after 5.0. 5.5 would be the fifth revision. 5.10 is the tenth revision, not a number equivalent to 5.1.

And even if it was decimal, it's still ridiculous. How the heck could anyone possibly know that this is "halfway" to 6e? Will there be another revision in a couple years? Is that 5.75e? You don't know. At least WotC knew their long term plan for 4e when they made 3.5, so they get a teeny little part if a pass on that (but it's still stupid). No one, not even Hasbro, has D&D road mapped that far out right now.

 

[CleverNickName]

Maybe if we start calling it the Revised 5th Edition (R5E), it'll catch on?

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe if we start calling it the Revised 5th Edition (R5E), it'll catch on?

It's the most accurate so far.

 

[trappedslider]

Really wish some ppl would just openly declare the axe they have that they want to grind instead of hiding it in a wall of text.