D&D (2024) We’ll be merging the One D&D and D&D forums shortly

[FrogReaver]

Again, the game was never One D&D. "One D&D" was a project name for combining of the physical and digital experience.

Also, they are not changing the name of the game, or of the edition. It's D&D. The 5th edition of D&D. Now there are going to be revised 5E core books, sure, but that does not make a new "edition" (as colloquially defined by D&D standards).

I will simply refer to the revised core books as D&D. If I need to reference or call out the 2014 books, I'll refer to them as the 2014 books. If I am pressed to call out the new books, I'll call them the "current" books or the 2024 books.

"5.5" has always been a travesty of a naming convention. It was a cheap attempt to use computer terminology, it was inaccurate, and spawned endless arguments for the community. I'm glad they swept that naming convention into the dustbin of history.

I don’t particularly care what we call the new books other than anything other than 5e because 5e is already a thing and they are not what we already have.

5e revised. 6e. 5.5e. 2024e. 5e 2024. 5e 50th anniversary revision. But they will never be just 5e. That designation is reserved for the 2014 edition of the books.

 

[Maxperson]

Inconsistent marketing BS.

You keep using that word: I do not think that it means what you think that it means.

Yes, they would be the fifth edition, the seventh edition, and the 8th/9th edition, respectively, if ovjective markers were being used rather than marketing BS. The BS grew too stinky, so even WotC is leaving the terminology on the trash heap of history.

They get to name the editions, not you or some publishing standard. There are only 5 editions and I can name them

And objective means exactly what I used it for. It is objectively true that the named editions do not take the publishing standards into consideration. To be untrue there would have to be explicit language in the the editions that advance the edition names to a higher number using the publishing standards. Can you show me where the editions say that, because I haven't seen it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, the game was never One D&D. "One D&D" was a project name for combining of the physical and digital experience.

Also, they are not changing the name of the game, or of the edition. It's D&D. The 5th edition of D&D. Now there are going to be revised 5E core books, sure, but that does not make a new "edition" (as colloquially defined by D&D standards).

I will simply refer to the revised core books as D&D. If I need to reference or call out the 2014 books, I'll refer to them as the 2014 books. If I am pressed to call out the new books, I'll call them the "current" books or the 2024 books.

"5.5" has always been a travesty of a naming convention. It was a cheap attempt to use computer terminology, it was inaccurate, and spawned endless arguments for the community. I'm glad they swept that naming convention into the dustbin of history.

Except WotC doesn't have the power to sweep names into the dustbin of history. Only the public and general disuse of the concept can do that, and it doesn't sound like its done yet to me.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

More $$. You gotta buy the books both physical and on Beyond.

Not anymore than you have to with the current books.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

More $$. You gotta buy the books both physical and on Beyond.

And why not?
Smart phones are sold to you every 2 to 3 years (yes, that is the expected time to live for them) for 600 to 800 dollars each.
Why is trying to sell your group bools for 180 dollars not ok?

After 10 years, rule books show some signs of use... Or they were probably not worth the money...

The only thing that is slightly annoying is having to pay for the convenience of digital books. I really wish there is some kind of discount for owners of the 2014 books.

 

[Parmandur]

They get to name the editions, not you or some publishing standard. There are only 5 editions and I can name them

And objective means exactly what I used it for. It is objectively true that the named editions do not take the publishing standards into consideration. To be untrue there would have to be explicit language in the the editions that advance the edition names to a higher number using the publishing standards. Can you show me where the editions say that, because I haven't seen it.

Objective means according to a standard outside of the subject. The naming history of D&D "editions" follows no rhyme nor reason, it's marketing BS all the way down. Moving away from Editions is less marketing BS and more "objective" than saying the 3E is the third "edition" of anything, because it is not. The fact thst you buy into the 3E abd 3.5 nomenclature is proof thwt WotC wil lbe able to get people to call the books just about anything they want.

 

[payn]

The masses of casual folks aren't online researching the changes or even following them. They buy and just play. That's what makes them casual players.

No, sorry dont buy it. I get that folks aint up on all the specifics, but its not a well kept secret a refresh is happening. Nobody walks blindly into a shop to figure out whats for sale.

 

[Kurotowa]

No, sorry dont buy it. I get that folks aint up on all the specifics, but its not a well kept secret a refresh is happening. Nobody walks blindly into a shop to figure out whats for sale.

You would be amazed at the level of low information that a lot of people operate under. You have to really care to stay plugged into the constant Internet news feed for a topic. Lots of people don't care that much. They'll vote on election day without watching any of the debates. They'll buy the new video game expansion without doing more than maybe watch a single trailer. They'll wander into their FLGS and buy the new book because the guy in their group who is plugged in showed it off last game session.

We who frequent a forum and devour every preview and press release and playtest are the 1%. Most players are not like us.

 

[Parmandur]

You would be amazed at the level of low information that a lot of people operate under. You have to really care to stay plugged into the constant Internet news feed for a topic. Lots of people don't care that much. They'll vote on election day without watching any of the debates. They'll buy the new video game expansion without doing more than maybe watch a single trailer. They'll wander into their FLGS and buy the new book because the guy in their group who is plugged in showed it off last game session.

We who frequent a forum and devour every preview and press release and playtest are the 1%. Most players are not like us.

Yes, exactly, that's why WotC is designing their product sound that low information status: hence the hyperfocus on interoperability.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And why not?
Smart phones are sold to you every 2 to 3 years (yes, that is the expected time to live for them) for 600 to 800 dollars each.
Why is trying to sell your group bools for 180 dollars not ok?

After 10 years, rule books show some signs of use... Or they were probably not worth the money...

The only thing that is slightly annoying is having to pay for the convenience of digital books. I really wish there is some kind of discount for owners of the 2014 books.

They're welcome to get people to buy whatever they want. Doesn't mean hordes of newish 5e gamers with perfectly usable 2014 books are going to shell out because...why? They really want you to?