D&D General Why Enworld should liberate D&D from Hasbro

[bedir than]

Its certainly better than "2024 edition",

Assertion without support.

As that's the primary way I see it talked about. This is also how sports fans generally talk about the rules updates (like when the IFAB updates their rules).

 

[Reef]

Since we're talking anecdotaly, when my group needs to differentiate, we call it 5e24. But there's usually no reason to specify, so it's usually all just 5e to us.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Since we're talking anecdotaly, when my group needs to differentiate, we call it 5e24. But there's usually no reason to specify, so it's usually all just 5e to us.

My group, and my game store, calls it "D&D" and only if there is a danger of confusing anyone we call it the "new books" and only here do I call it 2024. I only rarely need to speak of it as 5e.

My comment about 19th edition was mostly to point out how silly it is when people insist that it "can't be 5e, it must be 5.5!"

5e was never the fifth edition of D&D. It's all marketing labels. Why not just use the one that it's actually called, instead of trying to make one up for it?

Why do we need to even worry about it? If, as in Wizbang's example, we want to talk about D&D books coming in 2026 we don't need to say 2024 or 5e or 5.5. We KNOW what "edition" a D&D book published in 2026 is for!

We just like to argue.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's part of my point: People who played 3.5 are fixated on the idea of half editions. Half editions are not a thing.

It was a gimmick used ONCE, 20 years ago, for precisely one "edition", and part of the community won't let it go.

They called 4e Essentials 4.5. They retconned the 2e Black Books into 2.5. Now they want to call the 2024 books 5.5.

To me, you're simply fixated on a 20 year old marketing gimmick. That you have a lot of company doesn't make it any cooler.

But, whatever. I will probably lose in the long run, and we can all adopt 5.5 until they revise 6e in 2052. They'll call it Ultimate D&D or some other silly thing, and everyone will insist on calling it 6.5.

5.5 is faster to type than 2024 and everyone knows what you mean.

 

[Scribe]

But, whatever. I will probably lose in the long run, and we can all adopt 5.5 until they revise 6e in 2052. They'll call it Ultimate D&D or some other silly thing, and everyone will insist on calling it 6.5.

I dont understand why its a 'fight' that someone has to 'lose'.

Its a communication tool for quick identification. You cannot call it "D&D" there are a million of those. You cannot call it 5e Compatible D&D, there are dozens. You cannot just call it 5e, that isnt clear enough.

Why is calling it 5.5 even a problem to you?

 

[Echohawk]

People dont call 3.5 14th or whatever it would be in your terms, everyone calls it 3.5.

That's probably not the best comparison to make, since the 3.5 books actually had "v.3.5" on the covers, while the 2024 books do not.

Aside: I'm contemplating that little "v" right now. It clearly doesn't stand for edition, so have we all been misnaming it as 3.5 edition when we should have been calling it "version 3.5" all this time?!?

 

[Scribe]

That's probably not the best comparison to make, since the 3.5 books actually had "v.3.5" on the covers, while the 2024 books do not.

Aside: I'm contemplating that little "v" right now. It clearly doesn't stand for edition, so have we all been misnaming it as 3.5 edition when we should have been calling it "version 3.5" all this time?!?

Version, Edition, same thing really.

 

[payn]

Version, Edition, same thing really.

 

[Umbran]

Sorry, I feel unconfortable...

Mod Note:
We all feel uncomfortable now because you've stepped over into anti-inclusive, borderline political argument.

This is your 11th warning point. We gave you a bunch of leeway early on due to the language barrier, but that was years ago. There are only so many times you can step over the line, be warned, and then later do the same thing all over again before the owner and moderators get tired of it.

You are done in this discussion.

 

[Umbran]

Perhaps not, but it explains why people may be less willing to resort to lots of house rules anymore.

So, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, in the context I was responding to.

I was responding to how supposedly, a significant number of people have to (substantially?) houserule D&D to make it do what they want.

My response to that is that, we D&D gamers have done that, traditionally, anyway. It is not new. If what they want is for the game to play more like older, traditional rules, it is even more ironic - it is arguing that folks should not take traditional steps to get traditional playstyle.

It is unclear to me how players not being able to switch tables keeps people from using house rules.