D&D (2024) WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."

[Alzrius]

That his point though, in D&D terms "Edition" is a skunked term that has no consistent meaning. They are avoiding it because it no longer has value for communicating information.

I suspect WotC's avoidance of the term is more for economic reasons than issues of clarity.

 

[Parmandur]

I suspect WotC's avoidance of the term is more for economic reasons than issues of clarity.

Well, it's primarily because using it doesn't work for marketing...primarily because it is meaningless and confusing, thanks largely to past WotC usage. It's a radioactive term now.

 

[payn]

It's not a horseless carriage, its a car!

 

[Arilyn]

It depends on the players though. 5e was also just supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons but 5e stuck. If enough people settle on calling it 5.5 or 6, WoTC will lose that battle.

 

[MockingBird]

Calling it a new edition could scare some people, I can see why they would want to avoid it. They don't want to fracture the player base and by looking at the playtest I'm afraid they may fracture it by some fraction (less than half). They had me sold with "compatability" but I'm starting to have my doubts.

 

[Sir Brennen]

No, that's a new printing: errata are changes applied to an established type-set when a new printing is issued. When a new type-set is made, that's a new edition. Which is why "3.5" was disingenuous corporate BS, it was a new type-set that was substantially rewritten and not the same type-set with minor corrections, that is, a new edition in normal publishing parlance.

And I guess that's where the problem lies. Are we talking about "normal publishing parlance" or regarding changes in base rule sets?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

We could probably accept that this will be the (IIRC) 16th edition of D&D, but not that big of a change to the game this time. It might be changes that you don't want, and that's okay! But how "big" it is is hardly worth arguing about (in particular because I don't think anyone, even the designers, know exactly how "big" it will be yet.

I think it depends on what they can get us to (seemingly) accept. Sure, they have a plan about how big they want it to be. The playtest will not make the game for them. But anything that the community overall really cries foul about will be dropped for the extant 5e version of the rule. It's the safe way to go.

Of course, sometimes the community will cry foul about a change that would be really good for the game, but we'll have to live with that (again).

 

[Oofta]

I'm probably going to approach everything as an optional rule, and use what parts and pieces I want. For example most half-anything are probably still going to be half orc* or half elf. Others will probably be allowed if people really want them. On the other hand I don't see adding ardlings that have animal heads any time soon.

Taking a wait-and-see stand on what the final rules are and what other changes they make. I don't really have a problem moving stat bumps to background for example since I already let people use Tasha's.

So is it a new edition? Time will tell, at most it sounds like (in software terms) 5.1 or 5.5 not 6.

*most half orcs have a half orc parent, still debating if I'll change orcs from a race that is effectively manufactured similar to the clones in Star Wars.

 

[HammerMan]

Would you call reprints of a book that contains errata a new edition then?

Me no but I know people who would.

This isn’t errata either. It is whole sale changes of rules and concepts.

 

[Parmandur]

And I guess that's where the problem lies. Are we talking about "normal publishing parlance" or regarding changes in base rule sets?

TSR and WotC used the word to mean several different things over the years. Hence why they don't want to confuse people with what was made into an ambiguous term.