D&D (2024) WotC D&D Comunity Update for June 8th.

[Morrus]

@Morrus

There's only so many times I can write a news items saying "WotC says it's not a new edition"! I get they have to keep repeating it, but it's not going to make the news every time they say it.

 

[Emberashh]

I wonder what prompted this wave of clarification. Has there been an upsurge in people complaining about the changes constituting a new edition? Like, more such complaints than there have been all along?

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

I think it also warrants pointing out that regardless of how one percieves this issue, WOTC is prompting it all by being so overtly focused on avoiding it.

As the Kung Fu Turtle says, one often meets their destiny on the road they take to avoid it. I doubt these debates would be as intense or widespread if they didn't open their introduction of OneDND with a diatribe about it not being a new edition and didn't keep throwing fuel into the fire by constantly trying to argue back with the community.

They really need to just let it go and stop wasting their time and everyone elses by focusing so much on it, because that in turn means the community follows suit.

I saw a YT comment that put it pretty precisely: they spent 10s of minutes talking about edition wars instead of talking game mechanics and the neat things 1DND could be doing to jazz up the game.

 

[darjr]

There's only so many times I can write a news items saying "WotC says it's not a new edition"! I get they have to keep repeating it, but it's not going to make the news every time they say it.

Lol! Yea.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

I think it also warrants pointing out that regardless of how one percieves this issue, WOTC is prompting it all by being so overtly focused on avoiding it.

As the Kung Fu Turtle says, one often meets their destiny on the road they take to avoid it. I doubt these debates would be as intense or widespread if they didn't open their introduction of OneDND with a diatribe about it not being a new edition and didn't keep throwing fuel into the fire by constantly trying to argue back with the community.

They really need to just let it go and stop wasting their time and everyone elses by focusing so much on it, because that in turn means the community follows suit.

I saw a YT comment that put it pretty precisely: they spent 10s of minutes talking about edition wars instead of talking game mechanics and the neat things 1DND could be doing to jazz up the game.

I guess this could be true; but, this interpretation doesn’t really match what we’ve been told, the history of 5e, or the 2024 playtest.

 

[mamba]

I suspect that they recently realized they're not going to be able to go as far as they intended without it being a disaster.

Rather than, as I suspect was their original plan, letting 1DND "morph" into being a new edition as all the changes get solidified, they're no longer going to be able to change as much so they can't be coy about what it actually is anymore.

So they make less changes and can no longer be ‘coy’ about it being a new edition?

That makes no sense. If anything, making fewer changes would make it easier to not call it a new edition.

Also, given their latest statements they are very much still ‘coy about’ it being a new edition. They keep saying it is not…

 

[Kalmi]

To paraphrase a popular tweet: "My 'One D&D is not a new edition' t-shirt is raising a lot of questions already answered by my t-shirt."

I don't know if I fully subscribe to the idea that "If you're explaining, you're losing," but I feel the problem here is that the changes they've already presented are self-evidently in line with a revision of the rules. Perhaps not nearly enough to qualify for a new edition, as is typically thought of in D&D, but at least enough for the dreaded "X.5" moniker. It's understandable why they avoid that term-- another problem of their making, historically-- but trying to explain why their revision of the rules is not, in fact, a revision is going to be a tough sell in any context. And of course, the current context is a serious lack of trust in WotC leadership, which again, is a problem of their own making.

I personally would respect it more if they just came out and said this is 5.5, but they're trying to preserve as much compatibility as they can.

 

[Alzrius]

I guess this could be true; but, this interpretation doesn’t really match what we’ve been told, the history of 5e, or the 2024 playtest.

But it matches the history of 4th Edition, which (I think) is what WotC's worried is going to happen, and wants to avoid.

In Shannon Appelcline's product history for Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands (affiliate link), he says:

What a Difference an Edition Makes: The Compatibility. When Mearls began working on Essentials, one of his main priorities was keeping it totally compatible with previous 4e books. With the release of Heroes of the Fallen Lands, players could now see that changes were indeed pretty minimal, involving: errata; updated Feat and Magic Item systems; and updated philosophies for building characters. Of these, the difference between the character builds was the largest, and had the most possibility to be incompatible.

But the designers felt they weren't

Mearls paraphrased designer Rich Baker when he said, "the choice between a traditional build and an Essentials build would basically reflect different play styles". Baker expanded on this, saying "It’s perfectly ok if, at the same table, Joe is playing a Fighter straight out of the Players Handbook, with all of the power selections that he would ordinarily have had, and Dave, sitting next to him, is playing a Slayer, out of Essentials. Those Characters, essentially, are built the same, and are transparent to each other".

But that's not at all how the D&D roleplaying community treated the new rules. Between late 2010 and early 2011, 4e players seemed to fracture into "traditional" gamers and "Essentials" gamers. At first there were edition wars over whether Essentials had replaced the core rules, then for the next year each new D&D book was scrutinized for whether it was Essentials or traditional.

So, there's no mechanical reason not to use core and Essentials products together, but you could similarly have said that 3e books could be used with D&D 3.5e (2003) with almost no problem. In both cases, the roleplaying community disagreed.

I'm of the opinion that WotC is very much aware of what happened with 4Essentials in this regard, and wants very badly to avoid it happening again with One D&D. But in that regard, they seem to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; from what I can tell, people see a difference between a re-release of the Core Rulebooks and simply reprinting them with some errata applied, and that the former is viewed as being at least a "half-edition" update (that is, a ".5" edition change), whereas the latter isn't.

Now, we can debate where the difference lies between applying errata and a half-edition update, but I think that's the wrong conversation, because the difference isn't seen in a critical analysis of the new books' contents so much as it is in how WotC treats it prior to release. Which is to say, you don't actively market a reprint, even if it has errata; you do actively market a new product, and when the new product is the Core Rules, then it's a new edition, either in whole or point-five.

For WotC to then openly tell us otherwise smacks of being counterintuitive, which makes people skeptical; when there's a (perceived) mismatch between your actions and your claims, you're going to start receiving pushback.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For WotC to then openly tell us otherwise smacks of being counterintuitive, which makes people skeptical; when there's a (perceived) mismatch between your actions and your claims, you're going to start receiving pushback.

I don't know why this has to be counterintuitive... Can't gamers just be happy people and be happy about fresh rules updates every 10 years?

It also boils down to the Idea that spending another 200 Dollars for somewhat new contend is ripping them off. One of the cheapest hobbies ever and then not wanting to spend money to support the people and companies creating that.
Maybe always fighting evil organizations in the RPG makes one prone to see evil everywhere...

 

[mamba]

I'm of the opinion that WotC is very much aware of what happened with 4Essentials in this regard, and wants very badly to avoid it happening again with One D&D. But in that regard, they seem to be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy; from what I can tell, people see a difference between a re-release of the Core Rulebooks and simply reprinting them with some errata applied, and that the former is viewed as being at least a "half-edition" update (that is, a ".5" edition change), whereas the latter isn't.

Some insist on it being an edition change, yes. I guess the lesson here is no matter what WotC calls it, there will always be some people who disagree and insist on it being something else, contrary to everything WotC says and essentially all the evidence.

So all WotC can do is minimize the damage. Not calling it a new edition does that, because outside of a few hundred nerds on some forums, no one cares.

Calling it 5.5 would make everyone wonder whether the old and new books are compatible, whether 5e adventures can be played with 5.5 and vice versa. Still calling it 5e answers that for everyone.

From your quote “Between late 2010 and early 2011, 4e players seemed to fracture into "traditional" gamers and "Essentials" gamers. At first there were edition wars over whether Essentials had replaced the core rules, then for the next year each new D&D book was scrutinized for whether it was Essentials or traditional.”

This (separating the books into two editions) is what WotC wants to avoid. I don’t think they care if this is done with the core books, as long as it is not done with the rest.

 

[Velderan]

Maybe Jeremy lurks on this forum and noticed that every thread eventually devolved into "what is the true meaning of One D&D"?

Maybe he's been participating in the debate under an alias?

If he actually has to spend time on this forum as a part of his responsibilities, I hope WotC's benefits package includes a sizeable whiskey stipend..