D&D (2024) What would change for you if Wizards started calling it 6E?

[Remathilis]

The thing is, I think the new books being called 5.5 or 6e or whatever only really matters to people who want to use it as a hard break, typically as an off-ramp. It is so much cleaner to say, "I'm not upgrading again to 6e, I'll stick with my 5e" than it is to say, "I'm running 5e, but I'm only using the rules before 2024 (or Tasha's, or MotM, etc)." WotC wants that continuation. They want to advertise your favorite 3pp which is making 5e compatible stuff will work with your new books. They want you to buy the Vecna Adventure and run it with your 2014 Core Rules. They don't want you to say, "I'm getting off the treadmill" as much as they want you to say "hmm, I'm not using the new core books, but I will buy the new adventure or setting" or "I will use the new books, but I'll run buy and run Ghosts of Saltmarsh with them".

I realize there is a small group that bends the other way too; preferring that 6e was a clean break from 5e so it can reinvent the system akin to 3e/4e/5e, but that I feel is a pipe dream. 5e is too popular for radical reinvention. They aren't going to kill the golden goose just yet.

In the end of the day, I think most people will treat '24 as a mini-edition. It's useful to know which version of the warlock or barkskin your DM is using, but Curse of Strahd or Storm King's Thunder will be mostly unchanged by which version of the rules you are using.

 

[Corinnguard]

I think I would call it 6e, but only because Level Up has already claimed the title of 5.5.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I think I would call it 6e, but only because Level Up has already claimed the title of 5.5.

They have..?

Oh you mean in your heart, gotcha.

 

[Corinnguard]

They have..?

Not really. I merely think Level up deserved the coveted title of 5.5.

 

[Retreater]

In the end of the day, I think most people will treat '24 as a mini-edition. It's useful to know which version of the warlock or barkskin your DM is using, but Curse of Strahd or Storm King's Thunder will be mostly unchanged by which version of the rules you are using.

You know what, I am finally coming around to agree with this idea. It's not like the adventures had a strict sense of balance to begin with. Who cares if everyone gets extra feats, more HP, more effective wildshape, etc.?
Heck, just let the players do what they want and overwork the DM trying to figure out how to challenge them with no resources. That's what D&D has been doing since 2014.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I am in a weird spot. The more people argue about minutiae and semantics, the more I want to “just play.”

Somehow I am gonna be playing. Rules matter. One edition was “innovative” and I did not like it and did not play it.

But I realize 3e, 1e, 5e, 5.5 or 6e….I still got the jones to play.

If the game ends up departing more than they are telegraphing, 6e would feel more honest. Otherwise, if it is really compatible they can call it 5.5, ONE, whatever.

Hell they can call it 5e and 5e could be called 5e classic for all I care

 

[MoonSong]

The thing is, I think the new books being called 5.5 or 6e or whatever only really matters to people who want to use it as a hard break, typically as an off-ramp. It is so much cleaner to say, "I'm not upgrading again to 6e, I'll stick with my 5e" than it is to say, "I'm running 5e, but I'm only using the rules before 2024 (or Tasha's, or MotM, etc)." WotC wants that continuation. They want to advertise your favorite 3pp which is making 5e compatible stuff will work with your new books. They want you to buy the Vecna Adventure and run it with your 2014 Core Rules. They don't want you to say, "I'm getting off the treadmill" as much as they want you to say "hmm, I'm not using the new core books, but I will buy the new adventure or setting" or "I will use the new books, but I'll run buy and run Ghosts of Saltmarsh with them".

I'm guilty of this, but not in the exact way you mention. To me the biggest value of 5e is its role as a lingua franca, a common ground of sorts. To then have it blended and muddied by being simultaneously but not cleanly two different versions at once takes away from it. If it was clearly delimited, I could have an easier time handling it -and probably would end up moving on to the latest version, because it has value as a common ground-, but in the current state -old books are invalid with the new books- it is just too much work as opposed to going back to other editions. If I have to struggle to get an audience and I have to beat the edition into submission anyway, there is no point in not playing my favorite edition instead.

So, in short and less rambly, One D&D existing takes value away from 5e, and it not being a clean cut different thing prevents it from gaining that value back, and I'm more likely to jump ship to anyhting not 5e at all than to stick with both but none at the same time.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yeah this.

I'd also appreciate that they were at least on this one item being more honest and transparent, rather than as they have done for years now, just riding the fence to try and appeal to all/offend nobody.

If they called what they are doing now 6e, wouldn’t that be less transparent?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If they called what they are doing now 6e, wouldn’t that be less transparent?

Yes, because if they did it now, they would be lying about their intentions now, or were lying then.

That said, I still wish they would, because I want a clean break for 3pp to use.

 

[Scribe]

If they called what they are doing now 6e, wouldn’t that be less transparent?

Not sure I follow. I'm of the opinion that they are bending over backwards to avoid calling it a new edition.

Going ahead and call it what it is, wouldn't be a negative, and would be at least marginally more honest.