Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9268162" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I personally strongly dislike such nomenclature for books, and would have preferred something else get traction and history. But it is widely-used and familiar. It recalls software updates, where for example 6.X is all &quot;the same version,&quot; but 6.5 is expected to be a fair amount of update to the original 6.0 release. It's used in all sorts of things, video games, utilities, even some operating systems (remember &quot;Windows 3.1&quot;?)You certainly cannot really dispute that it's precedented. It undeniably, factually is. A previous publication of D&amp;D used the &quot;X.5&quot; nomenclature. That is precedent. You might consider it weak precedent, or outdated precedent, or any number of other mitigating circumstances. But to say that there is simply no precedent at all would be objectively false.Yes; and they were flatly wrong to do so. Essentials isn't even a revision.Right. It's frankly weird, because for all the things I believe WotC has been boneheaded about with regard to this edition, presentation has not generally been one of them. There was a brief flare-up of &quot;Disneyfication&quot; pearl-clutching (just the latest in a string of &quot;This aesthetic isn't absolutely perfectly for me, and therefore there's something WRONG with D&amp;D!!!&quot;, which now has been emboldened by the fact that those arguments actually worked at least once), and some sporadic hate for TCoE as having abandoned the heart and soul of the game, but otherwise presentation has been reasonably cohesive and effective.To ignore such a powerful symbol is just...weird.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9268162, member: 6790260"] I personally strongly [I]dislike[/I] such nomenclature for books, and would have preferred something else get traction and history. But it is widely-used and familiar. It recalls software updates, where for example 6.X is all "the same version," but 6.5 is expected to be a fair amount of update to the original 6.0 release. It's used in all sorts of things, video games, utilities, even some operating systems (remember "Windows 3.1"?) You certainly cannot really dispute that it's [I]precedented[/I]. It undeniably, factually is. A previous publication of D&D used the "X.5" nomenclature. That is precedent. You might consider it [I]weak[/I] precedent, or [I]outdated[/I] precedent, or any number of other mitigating circumstances. But to say that there is simply no precedent at all would be objectively false. Yes; and they were flatly wrong to do so. Essentials [I]isn't even a revision[/I]. Right. It's frankly weird, because for all the things I believe WotC has been boneheaded about with regard to this edition, presentation has not generally been one of them. There was a brief flare-up of "Disneyfication" pearl-clutching (just the latest in a string of "This aesthetic isn't absolutely perfectly for me, and therefore there's something WRONG with D&D!!!", which now has been emboldened by the fact that those arguments [I]actually worked[/I] at least once), and some sporadic hate for TCoE as having abandoned the heart and soul of the game, but otherwise presentation has been reasonably cohesive and effective. To ignore such a powerful symbol is just...[I]weird[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification