Mastodawn

It’s one of the cruel truths of the industry that a small well-liked company can say, “we like eating babies,” and fans will ask them to explain it and probably understand the context.

But WotC says “5.5” in one context and its torches and pitchforks all around.

And it's hard, because there are so many new staff there who probably didn't even realize why this was an issue. It's a game so big and with so much history, that the numbering seriously matters.

Alphastream Mar 3

The numbering is just for DDB, but it still has such a huge impact because of D&D’s footprint on this hobby. What One D&D was, what 3E vs 3.5 was, what a new edition vs revision means… tremendous complex nuance.

D&D lives in a zone where whether an edition is new or a revision potentially drives millions in revenue. In the other hand, the Beyond team probably just wanted an easy way to flag whether a partner book can be expected to be supported by the character builder.

Alphastream Mar 3

During 2024’s ramp up, the Design team really worked through whether to at all compare this to 3.5. 3.5 required repurchasing everything, so eventually the decision was, “no, not like 3.5.” Steps were taken to distance from that. A revision.

And One D&D was always a placeholder name, but had originally been the concept of a “forever edition” of D&D. Later the team walked back from that, smartly, because who knows the future?

Alphastream Mar 3

The term “2024” was one of those “gotta call it something” choices. Interestingly, 5E 2014 had this same problem. It too wanted to be a forever edition and to just be called D&D. The team initially fought against anyone calling it “5E!” It’s wild to recall that! Over time, they realized fans had to call it something, so 2014 D&D was called 5E.

Alphastream Mar 3

2024 isn’t a great name. “Anniversary edition” might have been better. But it’s interesting to note that the anti-WotC crowd uses “5.5” disparagingly. It won’t shock me if Beyond walks back today’s idea. It’s all a function of D&D’s complex history and scale.

Alphastream Mar 3

I’ll also say that DDB’s use of 5.5 is not great messaging. It’s trying to solve a technical issue (Beyond needs an engineer update, bringing in 2014 3rd party products is hard). But what it signals unintentionally is “not compatible.” When, as a game, it is!

4E made this misstep as well. Essentials was announced as not 4.5, and it was compatible! Then the online magazines decided to label articles as Essentials, 4E, or both! But they really were compatible. Bad messaging and unfortunate.

DnDFanatics Mar 3

@Alphastream 100%! Also, I don't think fans are even calling it "DnD 5.5e." We wrote a whole blog post about it here (with some supporting Google Trends and Keyword data): https://dungeonsanddragonsfan.com/dnd-2024-now-officially-dnd5-5e/

D&D 2024 is Now Officially Known as "D&D 5.5e"

Wizards of the Coast has announced that D&D 2024 is now officially "D&D 5.5e." We look at why they made the name change and whether it was the right call.

Dungeons & Dragons Fanatics

profounddark Mar 3

@Alphastream I will say that as somebody who played 4e until beyond WotC caring, it did feel like the Essentials content was a blend with the original. Maybe not the most harmonious blend. But a blend. Little in Essentials felt like a replacement; just a new take.

Even when 2024E came out, it was a replacement. They rebooted or replaced existing content. I don’t think anybody saw it as meant to live alongside the old content; just a “use the old until we replace it.”

@Alphastream
If it just specific for DDB 5.24 might have worked, leaving space for other minor updates like 5.29. But that's not so clear for marketing.

In practice how compatible are the versions, I have still only played in games which used 100% pre 2024 rules?

Alphastream Mar 3

@o_o It’s really compatible. Like, unless the DM really leans into certain changes like naming the action types, it’s no different.

Bent Chinrest Mar 3

@Alphastream @o_o this is the drum I've been beating
the '24 revision dropped in the middle of my open-table campaign and I, uh, *ambitiously* let players choose which version applied to their characters. 50/50 split at the table showed me the rules aren't interoperable, but are fully compatible
Removal of "opposing rolls" (grapple) and sealing "meta leaks" (Sleep) are the most significant changes, nothing to go online about

@paneerakbari @Alphastream
That's really interesting, that even mixed between players at the same table it doesn't really make much difference.
Did you find any of the old classes get effected by the detail of spells etc differently than the new ones do?

Bent Chinrest Mar 3

@o_o @Alphastream first, I do not recommend running that way because it's just too messy. And I carried on with the '14 monster stat blocks, which really gave the PCs who upgraded a sizable advantage
Mostly it was the healers who most benefited, which is not at all surprising
Barbarian resistances from Rage are a sleeper hit, extending into higher levels

I did a comparative analysis of the mechanical changes for every spell, class, and subclass over on my site

@paneerakbari @Alphastream

Thanks I will take a look.

Derek Guder (he/him)Mar 3

@Alphastream Most folks use a “.5” label disparagingly. Not different enough to be a new edition, not close enough to not be a new edition at all.

2014/2024 was a perfectly fine naming structure. 5/5.5 is also fine, though carries more baggage.

But dancing around pretending like it doesn’t need to be communicated/address was and will always be kinda silly.

Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary Mar 3

@frequentbeef @Alphastream
That is the thing that irked me so much about WotC's insistence on refusing to draw a distinction. They seem to think that editions are bad marketing, when they're not purely or even *primarily* marketing; they're a compatibility statement. Editions * and *.5 are semi-compatible but need attention and care if mixed, while editions *-1 and * are not particularly compatible. Refusing to label is like thinking printing sizes on wrenches is "bad marketing".

Pteryx the Puzzle Secretary Mar 3

@frequentbeef @Alphastream
It kind of goes with what I've said before: WotC's C-suite seems to think they're in the business of selling CDs of guitar music, but no, they're selling guitars first and foremost, alongside some sheet music suitable for playing on guitar. They seem to be baffled whenever they're confronted with any iteration of the idea that D&D is a *tool* ("what do you *mean* Sigil is going to be a service, not a video game?!").

Dave Clark Mar 3

@Alphastream OneDnD as the unification of the pencil & paper, character engine and the 3d VTT was solid branding. As a rule set name it lasted a single UA

randomwizard Mar 3

@Alphastream I remember writing that trying to avoid temporal designations is not going to work back when they were going to call it D&D Next.

Douglas Kilpatrick Mar 3

@Alphastream As a player for a very very long time ... Uh ...

What's the importance people are seeing with this? What am I missing?

Douglas Kilpatrick Mar 3

@Alphastream It IS a revision a-la Essentials. A bit less than 3.5, but kinda close to that. Is it just admitting this? Is it assumptions about future plans? What?