D&D (2024) WotC has called the new ruleset 5.2. Why don't we?

[Hriston]

5.2 is this SRD revision. SRD v5.0 was 2015. SRD v5.1 was actually 2016's revisions around the release of Curse of Strahd.

According to Wikipedia, the 5th Ed. SRD was released in January 2016 and updated to SRD 5.1 in May 2016. There don't seem to be any rules changes between the two versions (the update had to do with the inclusion of certain IP and the term DM, if I recall correctly), so I think the publication of Curse of Strahd (March 15, 2016) is actually a really good event to mark the beginning of 5.1. CoS was the first adventure for the edition that was produced entirely in-house, whereas earlier adventure books were the result of collaborations with other studios or produced under commission. So I'd categorize 5E's publication history (so far) into the following two "eras":

5.0 (July 15, 2014 - January, 2016): This period commences with the publication of the Starter Set, followed by the core rulebooks and "Tyranny of Dragons" pair of adventures in 2014, continues with more adventures and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide produced with assistance from other game studios in 2015, and culminates with the publication of the SRD (5.0) in January 2016.

5.1 (March 15, 2016 - present): This period is characterized by mostly in-house production of adventures and setting materials, a reliance on anthology books to round out the adventure publishing schedule, and a proliferation of supplemental rules expansions.

5.2 is set to begin on September 17, 2024 with the publication of the first of the revised core rulebooks.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I predict in about a year from now, we'll all call it D&D and this whole "e" thing will finally go away.

They were trying this ten years ago. Totally worked out for them.

 

[Marandahir]

According to Wikipedia, the 5th Ed. SRD was released in January 2016 and updated to SRD 5.1 in May 2016. There don't seem to be any rules changes between the two versions (the update had to do with the inclusion of certain IP and the term DM, if I recall correctly), so I think the publication of Curse of Strahd (March 15, 2016) is actually a really good event to mark the beginning of 5.1. CoS was the first adventure for the edition that was produced entirely in-house, whereas earlier adventure books were the result of collaborations with other studios or produced under commission. So I'd categorize 5E's publication history (so far) into the following two "eras":

5.0 (July 15, 2014 - January, 2016): This period commences with the publication of the Starter Set, followed by the core rulebooks and "Tyranny of Dragons" pair of adventures in 2014, continues with more adventures and Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide produced with assistance from other game studios in 2015, and culminates with the publication of the SRD (5.0) in January 2016.

5.1 (March 15, 2016 - present): This period is characterized by mostly in-house production of adventures and setting materials, a reliance on anthology books to round out the adventure publishing schedule, and a proliferation of supplemental rules expansions.

5.2 is set to begin on September 17, 2024 with the publication of the first of the revised core rulebooks.

Ahh I misremembered. For some reason I thought the SRD first launched summer 2015 and was updated the next spring. I got the second part right though!

 

[Clint_L]

WotC obviously doesn't want it to have its own name. They want you to call it D&D or 5E, just names that are already in use.

Yeah, they straight up said that back when they launched the whole project: they want to stop thinking in terms of editions. They want everyone to just call it "D&D." Which is probably what'll happen except when hardcore fans like us need to differentiate.

My spouse has been playing for years, and if I asked them what they thought about 5e, they would have no idea what I was talking about.

 

[Deset Gled]

They want everyone to just call it "D&D." Which is probably what'll happen except when hardcore fans like us need to differentiate.

My spouse has been playing for years, and if I asked them what they thought about 5e, they would have no idea what I was talking about.

The whole thing is just a case of marketing gone amuck.

There's a big trend in naming things to not include versions anymore. Like how we used to talk about "Internet Explorer 6" or "MacOS Leopard", brands like to just call themselves "Edge" or "Photoshop" without any of the numbers/identifiers. This is logical, because it helps solidify brands for recognizability and minimizes sub-identities. But the thing is, all of those software cases still have formal versioning. Firefox doesn't refer to itself and Firefox 127 anymore, but if you go to Help>About you can still find the version information. Because the casual user doesn't need to care, but there are lots of times when it's critical to know the exact version.

WotC jumped on this trend for D&D. And it's not the first time, either (if you go look at multiple things released for 3e it will just say "Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover). But somewhere along the line this got pushed from a simple marketing concept to the point where WotC refused to even name the next version. And I'll give them that versioning for something like D&D isn't anywhere as strict or critical as it is for software release. But the idea that you won't even acknowledge the change is just being reductionist to the point of absurdity.

Obviously, everyone will call it D&D in casual conversation, the way people always have. But, equally obviously, there also needs to be some way to communicate about which copy of the rules we're using. Whether it's on a VTT (where it really is critical) to just telling your DM what page of a book you're reading from. So, 3x obviously, someone has to name it. But WotC refuses to do it. And we, as a community, kinda suck at consensus. So here we are. Bleh.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

minimizes sub-identities

That's a neat analysis. I think they must have disagreed internally and probably settled on silence.

 

[Cadence]

They're apparently selling it as:

 

[Parmandur]

They're apparently selling it as:

View attachment 369966

Yeah, if the need to differentiate arises, "'24" has the benefit of being simply descriptive without trying to stake a claim about how Editions ackshully work.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

They're apparently selling it as:

View attachment 369966

Weeeeeeell...

Alright. I see most people prefer 24.