9
\$\begingroup\$

Apparently was the working name of the project.

All of the branding simply shows it as "D&D":

" while there are some open questions still, this is concrete news that Dungeons & Dragons (no longer Next, or even 5e, just Dungeons & Dragons) is coming soon."

... So do we tag it as 5e, or retain "next" or what?

According to this:

We have:

enter image description here

enter image description here

enter image description here

... and apparently "ampersand":

enter image description here

\$\endgroup\$
  • 8
    \$\begingroup\$ ... Oh no. People are going to use the [dungeons-and-dragons] for 5e. It's going to be destroyed. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 1:09
  • 9
    \$\begingroup\$ That is the most unnecessarily metal ampersand I've seen in quite a while. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 20 '14 at 1:35
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanHobbs We already have that problem with new users asking 4e questions. So, business as usual. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 20 '14 at 18:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ Finally the fact that happens so often makes sense... \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 21:52
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Pictures from the back of the books have been made available, and the back of the books infact says "Fifth edition" \$\endgroup\$ – GMNoob May 24 '14 at 18:27
31
\$\begingroup\$

I vote for , as that's what it is, and there's no way to confuse it. A year from now, people might not know it was ever "Next".

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ No reason we can't synonym [dnd-next] to [dnd-5e], either. \$\endgroup\$ – Oblivious Sage May 22 '14 at 1:21
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ +1. The back of the books refers to it as "fifth edition". I'm all for adding the synonym as well. \$\endgroup\$ – okeefe May 23 '14 at 18:20
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ People still call Magic the Gathering Online "modo" even though that was never a published phrase. D&D Next is catchy, I personally bet it will stick around for much of 5e's lifetime. \$\endgroup\$ – corsiKa May 24 '14 at 9:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ The name 'Next' is for marketing, it is still the 5th version of D&D right? \$\endgroup\$ – pet Jun 4 '14 at 3:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ It would be nice if we could make this happen sooner rather than later, especially before Basic drops. \$\endgroup\$ – okeefe Jun 10 '14 at 15:22
7
\$\begingroup\$

Oh, it was the same thing with 4e. The books don't say 4e; it was branded as simply "D&D," but that didn't fool anyone. We had maybe a couple people show up here and mis-tag and they were corrected and the world went on.

We don't need to do anything, just alias dnd-5e to dnd-next, and it'll all work out fine. It'll only be not known as "D&D Next" to those who have never ventured onto the internet prior to coming here to RPG.SE.

Early press shows that though they're going for the generic D&D branding, Gen Con for example is referring to it as 5e. I think we can wait and see whether 5e or Next is more common at launch, use that, synonym the other, done.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ That's a great relief - I suspect 4e at least referred to itself as "4th edition" on the inside pages, so we can find out what they're really calling 5e when it comes out or we get advanced copies. (I'd prefer [dnd-5e] for the tag, though, to keep convention.) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 2:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not sure it's quite that simple, as the WotC site Catalog's "series" column specifies the edition for products from 3.5 and earlier, but calls both 4e and 5e products "D&D" without further differentiation. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 20 '14 at 2:24
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ (Also, speaking as someone who avoided the RPG bits of the Internet with great care until I found rpg.se, that's not a really solid assumption to base policy on.) \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 20 '14 at 2:32
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ On my prior comment: D&D 4th Edition only calls itself that a couple of times in the PHB as far as I can find. Once inside the cover in the credits, and once in the History of D&D section. The DMG appears to only even have the credit page mention. Apparently despite it never calling itself D&D 4th Edition otherwise, we got along just fine. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 10:17
2
\$\begingroup\$

When a company pulls a stupid and gives a game an ambiguous name, you can always count on the player community coming up with an unambiguous moniker so that communication remains possible.

And because for tag-naming purposes we always defer to the player community's naming conventions, we have nothing to worry about. We'll tag it whatever the community calls it, probably "D&D 5e" (most likely) or "D&D 5th" (less likely but maybe), so or .

\$\endgroup\$
-6
\$\begingroup\$

I'm putting this out here as a solution, just so we can judge its merits. I'd likely downvote this myself though.

Migrate our current to and synonymize and to , which merely leaves the problem of how to integrate dungeons-and-dragons-module-x into the problem.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ [dungeons-and-dragons-all-editions] exceeds the 25-character tag limit; it would have to be [dnd-all-editions] (which coincidentally brings this in line with all of our other D&D tags) \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 1:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Edited. Because yeah. \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 20 '14 at 1:36
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm tempted to put up another as: "ampersand. The symbol formerly known as D&D, formerly known as D&D-next, formerly known as D&D-5th ed" \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 20 '14 at 1:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ [dnd-ampersand] \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 1:39
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ or [dampersandd]? \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 20 '14 at 1:46
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ But that's not metal enough. what about [↜dAMPERSANDd↝]? \$\endgroup\$ – Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 20 '14 at 1:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ We can do better! There are unicode codepoints for dragon and dragon face. As long as someone has font support, we can do [d🐉d] or somesuch! \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 20 '14 at 2:21
  • 5
    \$\begingroup\$ In all seriousness, I do think [dnd-5e] as the primary tag makes more sense in light of our other dnd tags. \$\endgroup\$ – BESW May 20 '14 at 2:27
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ This would also have the problem that when 6e comes out, all our 5e questions tagged [dungeons-and-dragons] would have to be edited so that [dungeons-and-dragons] could be re-assigned to the 6th edition... \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie May 20 '14 at 18:38
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Can we get dnd-all-editions as a separate meta suggestion? I like that one, but not the rest of this answer. \$\endgroup\$ – KRyan May 21 '14 at 14:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .