Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8751864" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>So I have a problem with this, because, maybe I'm misremembering, but my recollection of 4E Essentials is that there were literally no actual general rules changes (though I admit this may be difficult to track with 4E's constant updates).</p><p></p><p>At all.</p><p></p><p>And all that Essentials did was add yet more takes on classes/abilities. Some of them were further from the AEDU structure, but still not entirely alienated from it, and they worked literally 100% perfectly with existing material.</p><p></p><p>So that idea that the Essentials books were either a new "edition" or a new "version" kind of falls flat. It's actually just a pair of splatbooks <em>hyped</em> as a new version/edition. That's been done before in games of various kinds, particularly board* and war games, where they have the "original" format, then later you get stand-alone add-ons, that either can be played by themselves, or are 100% compatible with the original game. I feel like even thinking it's an edition or version in a meaningful way is just buying into the hype.</p><p></p><p>If I'm wrong and there were general rules changes, please correct me.</p><p></p><p>That's a fundamentally different approach to 3.5E, which changed fundamental rules, revised existing classes (rather than providing new-but-compatible takes, which even had their own names to cleanly separate them and make them run well at the same table), and generally re-worked the game. It's also different form a lot of older ('70s and '80s) updates, where there was no clean intent to have an "edition change", just they kept changing/updating the rules and saw nothing wrong with doing that and not highlighting it, and just letting DMs deal with the consequences.</p><p></p><p>As an aside, I don't buy the OP's "skunked term" super-hot take (which is spicier than the very people he attempts to criticise), and is a pretty bad concept even in linguistics. Edition isn't changing in meaning. Edition in RPGs means what it's always mean, and this is clearly 6E (based on the current rate of change). The problem as you say, isn't this edition change at all, rather it's the 2E-3E, 3E-4E, and 4E-5E changes, all of which weren't mere "edition changes" in RPG parlance, but major re-writes, which with other games, ones less brand-reliant, might have even meant giving the product a new name. I don't really want to propose those names, because I'm not a name guy (and honestly I don't WotC are particularly good at names either), but 3E could easily have been called something like D&D 2000, or um, dare I say it "D&D: A New Era" (kill me now), if it was a lesser-known game. What was weird was trying to call THAT 3rd edition, not calling THIS 6th edition.</p><p></p><p>* = Tons of modern board games do this and it's actually a hot topic with board game fans. Dominion has a ton of stand-alone expansions, for example, which you can mix-and-match with the original Dominion set (indeed I first played it with one of these, and was severely confused when I got base Dominion and it didn't have any of those cards, but obviously played the same way!).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8751864, member: 18"] So I have a problem with this, because, maybe I'm misremembering, but my recollection of 4E Essentials is that there were literally no actual general rules changes (though I admit this may be difficult to track with 4E's constant updates). At all. And all that Essentials did was add yet more takes on classes/abilities. Some of them were further from the AEDU structure, but still not entirely alienated from it, and they worked literally 100% perfectly with existing material. So that idea that the Essentials books were either a new "edition" or a new "version" kind of falls flat. It's actually just a pair of splatbooks [I]hyped[/I] as a new version/edition. That's been done before in games of various kinds, particularly board* and war games, where they have the "original" format, then later you get stand-alone add-ons, that either can be played by themselves, or are 100% compatible with the original game. I feel like even thinking it's an edition or version in a meaningful way is just buying into the hype. If I'm wrong and there were general rules changes, please correct me. That's a fundamentally different approach to 3.5E, which changed fundamental rules, revised existing classes (rather than providing new-but-compatible takes, which even had their own names to cleanly separate them and make them run well at the same table), and generally re-worked the game. It's also different form a lot of older ('70s and '80s) updates, where there was no clean intent to have an "edition change", just they kept changing/updating the rules and saw nothing wrong with doing that and not highlighting it, and just letting DMs deal with the consequences. As an aside, I don't buy the OP's "skunked term" super-hot take (which is spicier than the very people he attempts to criticise), and is a pretty bad concept even in linguistics. Edition isn't changing in meaning. Edition in RPGs means what it's always mean, and this is clearly 6E (based on the current rate of change). The problem as you say, isn't this edition change at all, rather it's the 2E-3E, 3E-4E, and 4E-5E changes, all of which weren't mere "edition changes" in RPG parlance, but major re-writes, which with other games, ones less brand-reliant, might have even meant giving the product a new name. I don't really want to propose those names, because I'm not a name guy (and honestly I don't WotC are particularly good at names either), but 3E could easily have been called something like D&D 2000, or um, dare I say it "D&D: A New Era" (kill me now), if it was a lesser-known game. What was weird was trying to call THAT 3rd edition, not calling THIS 6th edition. * = Tons of modern board games do this and it's actually a hot topic with board game fans. Dominion has a ton of stand-alone expansions, for example, which you can mix-and-match with the original Dominion set (indeed I first played it with one of these, and was severely confused when I got base Dominion and it didn't have any of those cards, but obviously played the same way!). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC is right to avoid the word "edition."
Top