# What name would you like the next iteration of D&D to bear?



## Morrus (Jan 16, 2012)

Last week, we held a poll asking you about your feelings regarding the future of D&D following the recent announcements about the upcoming new edition.  Over 1500 of you voted, with the result that *57% of you feel positive, 30% feel neutral, and 12% feel negative* (numbers rounded to the nearest percentage).  The numbers didn't change more than a couple of percent from when only 100 of you had voted up until when the count reached 1500.

*This week's poll deals with the name of the upcoming iteration of D&D.  What name would you like to see on the cover of the new edition?* 

Mike Mearls says_ "I think that the actual naming of the game will come down to how the play-tests go and how people react to it. I’d love to just call it Dungeons & Dragons and leave the edition numbering behind."_  How about you?

Feel free to elaborate in the thread, or to suggest alternative names.

If you're viewing this on the news page, you'll see the poll to your right. If you're viewing the thread, you'll see it at the top of the thread. If you're viewing this on one of our mobile apps, you'll need to click through and view it in your mobile device's web browser. If you're viewing it in the newsletter, you'll need to visit the site, also. If you're viewing it some other weird way that I've not thought of, then I have no frikkin' idea - just visit the EN World home page.


----------



## MichaelSandar (Jan 16, 2012)

Just Dungeons & Dragons.  They're trying to tie us all together, why qualify it more than that?


----------



## madjackmcmad (Jan 16, 2012)

Two candidates I think you missed:

Dungeons and Dragons: Owlbears Owlbears Owlbears Owlbears Owlbears.

Fungeons and Flagons.


----------



## delericho (Jan 16, 2012)

My first preference would be just "Dungeons & Dragons".

However, if they have to have _any_ qualifier, then it has to be "Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition".


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 16, 2012)

If they select "Dungeons & Dragons" then it is going to be called 5th ed anyway, just to distinguish it from others.


----------



## Divine Bobhead (Jan 16, 2012)

Dungeons and Dragons is, to my mind, the only real option if they want to achieve their stated goal of unifying the player base again. I agree it will likely still be called D&D 5th Edition to differentiate it from prior editions. But to set the right tone I think they need to just call it "Dungeons and Dragons".


----------



## Alzrius (Jan 16, 2012)

I want them to call it "Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition" for two reasons. The first is to distinguish it from Fourth Edition (which was, on its product logos, simply "Dungeons & Dragons").

Secondly, I think that calling it the Fifth Edition is a nice way to passively acknowledge the editions that have come before, which I think is a good way to recognize the game's history. What better way to help usher in a feeling of inclusiveness?


----------



## BlackMoria (Jan 16, 2012)

Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition.

Because unless this is going to be the absolute last edition of D&D that WOTC releases, then what do you call the edition that follows this new one?

D&D 2nd edition is already taken.

Keep with the existing format.

As if calling it simply Dungeons and Dragons means we will all get together and start singing Kumbaya.  Pffft.

We all live for the edition wars...


----------



## drothgery (Jan 16, 2012)

No matter what WotC calls it, players are actually going to call it D&D Fifth Edition. They tried the D&D (no qualifier) thing with both 3e and 4e. It didn't stick.


----------



## buddhafrog (Jan 16, 2012)

I also like Dungeons & Dragons, but that wouldn't work in practice.  We'd call it something.  They might want to control what it is called.  If it has no qualifier, I expect it will eventually be known as 5e.  I don't think they want that.


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 16, 2012)

drothgery said:


> They tried the D&D (no qualifier) thing with both 3e and 4e. It didn't stick.




I've been told this twice recently. It's just plain wrong.

The cover of the /4e PHB says "Dungeons and Dragons" in big letters. Which version of it do you have?









As does the /3e addition by the looks of this.

So - show us a book with the brand name of the game being D&D for /3e or /4e. 
Note: That is different from a D&D logo existing which is also used to mark WoTC products.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 16, 2012)

"Dungeons and Dragons" should be on the cover.

People will call it 5e regardless, but first and foremost, the game is _Dungeons and Dragons_, and that's what we should call it.


----------



## Charles Dunwoody (Jan 16, 2012)

Wizards seems to be going after new players as well as existing players. So just calling Dungeons and Dragons makes the most sense. I think sticking 5E or 5th edition on the front would likely confuse returning players.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 16, 2012)

Names like "D&D Final" and "D&D Ultimate" are tricky. What happens, say, 10-15 years later, when "D&D Final" becomes all bloated and outdated and the core and supplements need be updated again with rules errata, consolidation, etc -- would that next iteration be called "D&D Final Ultimate This Time for Sure Re-Unified Compendium"?


----------



## Brom Blackforge (Jan 16, 2012)

The name "Dungeons and Dragons" is larger than just one edition. And no matter how all-encompassing they want this new edition to seem, it's still just one edition. The new edition needs to be called something other than just "Dungeons and Dragons" in order to differentiate it from the previous editions. My preference would be to stick with the naming convention that has already been established and call it 5th Edition. I know that's what I'm going to be calling it anyway....


----------



## was (Jan 16, 2012)

I like Ultimate Dungeons and Dragons


----------



## drothgery (Jan 16, 2012)

Anselyn said:


> I've been told this twice recently. It's just plain wrong.



When I say 'it didn't stick' I don't mean that WotC started putting an edition number in the logo (they never did that), or even on the cover (though they did with 3.5 and TSR did with 2e). I mean that players never used D&D (with no edition number) to refer to 3e or 4e.


----------



## broghammerj (Jan 16, 2012)

Dungeon and Dragons...it is what it is, although I would consider subtitles such as Dungeon and Dragons (A Mind Flaying Experience).


----------



## Tilenas (Jan 16, 2012)

Right from when I heard they were trying to get everyone aboard with this edition, I realized that the perfect name would be
Ultimate Dungeons & Dragons or UD&D. 

It also makes sense from a marketing POV, so I guess there's a real possibility of that being the title in the end. If nit, my hope would be "Dungeons & Dragons: Owlbears, Owlbears, Owlbears, Bugbears, Dire bears". Anything better than this horrible "D&D next", which doesn't make any freaking sense.


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 16, 2012)

drothgery said:


> I mean that players never used D&D (with no edition number) to refer to 3e or 4e.




Of course they did. Are you saying no one ever said - "Do you want to join our D&D group?", "Do you fancy playing D&D this weekend?"  They _always_ stuck in an edition reference after the release of /3e? ??

And, what I was saying - and still believe - is that WoTC could change the name to "D&D" and avoid the whole problematic Dungeons thing ...

It works for M&Ms. Did the M and M ever stand for anything? Does it matter if they did?


----------



## Anselyn (Jan 16, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Dungeons and Dragons" should be on the cover.
> 
> People will call it 5e regardless, but first and foremost, the game is _Dungeons and Dragons_, and that's what we should call it.




Shall I search your posts to find how often you call it D&D rather than its proper name that you should call it?

If you use Google trends to look at references to "Dungeons & Dragons" compared to "D&D" there seems to be negligible difference in their use/popularity.

Now's the time for the player's name for the game to become it's real name: D&D


----------



## OnlineDM (Jan 16, 2012)

I like Legacies. While straight-up D&D would be lovely, it will need a qualifier in conversation about different editions. If none is provided, it will end up as Fifth Edition. I'd like to see something other than 5e for a name, and Legacies appeals to me the most among these options.


----------



## unan oranis (Jan 16, 2012)

I fell in love with dnd extreme at first sight.


----------



## LurkAway (Jan 16, 2012)

Say previous editions are no longer published (and old stock collects dust on the shelves in the corner of the local gaming store) or sold only as PDFs or thru DDI online. In that case, for D&D newbies, a new "Dungeons & Dragons" doesn't need a qualifier (in fact a qualifier may just confuse, if the older stuff isn't prevalent). For old time fans, they already know to coin it 5E so they don't need the qualifier. And frankly if people need to frequently reference legacy editions of D&D, then from Hasbro/WoTC's perspective, 5E will be a failure anyway, because the entire goal of 5E is to get everyone on the new wave, so a qualifier could be an admittance of failure to achieve that goal.

Then from a practical point of view, each supplement will have a qualifier (D&D martial expansion, D&D exotic races, etc.) so two qualifiers becomes wordy and cumbersome.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Jan 16, 2012)

I voted 5th edition.

But I think it should just say Dungeons and Dragons on the cover, and when talking to my non-gaming friends I'll just call it Dungeons and Dragons. When speaking to my gaming friends I think it needs a descriptor to distinguish it from the past incarnations, and 5e seems the most obvious.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Jan 16, 2012)

From their stated goals, It seemed like a unified Dungeons and Dragons is their goal from both a functional design and a marketing focus.

So yes, Dungeons and Dragons, Unlimited Edition and Dungeons and Dragons, Ultimate edition are fine; however, _Dungeons and Dragons, Unified_ _Ed_. or _Dungeons and Dragons, United Ed_ seems to speak to their more immediate design and marketing goal. 

Either way, it will be _*DDU*_ in shorthand.


----------



## Mark Hope (Jan 16, 2012)

Put Dungeons & Dragons on the cover and call it that for branding purposes.  It's 5th edition because it's the edition that came after 4th edition, and that's how it will probably be called for purposes of differentiating it from its predecessors - that's what I already think of it as now.  D&D Next is silly - are they still going to want to call it that when we're playing it?  Unlikely.  As far as placeholders go, D&D Next is unecessary and smacks of the kind of marketing-speak that irritated me with the release of 4e.  But then I'm irritable like that anyway so take that as you like .


----------



## Henry (Jan 16, 2012)

D&D 5th Edition.

Just be honest.


----------



## fba827 (Jan 16, 2012)

> Dungeons & Dragons" (no qualifier)




While I like that intent, and think that branding should most likely be done that way (just as it has for prior editions), it does need a descriptor for practical reasons -- as others have mentioned, that name alone is larger than any edition and people will want a way to refer to the specific current ruleset in discussions.

I mean, you can't have a technical discussion about what's wrong with your computer's operating system by just identifying the operations system name. You need to mention what version it is if you want people to understand the baseline for your discussion.  So market it as D&D but it needs a name and it's better that the company gives it that name rather than one evolving unofficially.



> "D&D Next"




This just sounds uninspired and does not evoke any sort of excitement from me.



> "D&D 5th Edition"




Even if this isn't the "official" name, if the new name is too clunky this will probably be the mainstream name.



> "D&D 2013" (or 2014, or whenever)




From a business standpoint, branding a game with a date automatically puts it in the "kids who like the shiny new will not want it by 2015" I don't see this being a good name for that and other reasons.



> "D&D Anniversary Edition"




Out of all the predefined choices on this poll, this is the one I like the most.



> "D&D Final"




I have no idea what the game mechanics are like, but will it really be the ultimate final edition, ever? I suspect not...plus, it doesn't really roll off your tongue in conversation, "Yeah, i'm playing d&d, we're playing final".... wouldn't roll off my tongue anyway.



> "D&D Ultimate Edition"




I dislike the word ultimate as way too many things are "ultimate" "extreme" and so on. and just seems like pandering to a lower audience.



> "D&D Generations"




I see the word Generations like that and I start thinking of a certain Star Trek movie.



> "D&D Extreme"




See my comment above about "ultimate"



> "D&D Legacies"




I'm a maybe on this ...



> Other




D&D Legends
D&D VE (as in roman numeral 5 edition)
D&D XLe (as in roman 40 edition) -- but "xl" is seen too much on clothing sizes that it might give the wrong meaning to someone who isn't familiar with the game, so maybe not so much
D&D LE (aka Limited Edition)
D&D Open Source Edition <-- based on the way I see it described so far  But alas, I think only tech geeks would get that reference
D&D Community Edition
D&D Freedom Edition <-- i keep seeing the term "you're free to pick your level of complexity ..."
D&D Nova edition
D&D Now
D&D: Satans Game
D&D The Heroic Edition <- only reason i don't like this one as much is that Heroic has just been added to the lexicon of the game for having a specific meaning already
D&D The One Ring Edition
D&D The Adventure Edition
D&D Titan edition

(( Yes, some of those are meant as a joke ))

But in truth, without having any idea what the game is supposed to be like... any title i vote for would be more of a current whim rather than what the edition feels like.


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 16, 2012)

Let's face it, no matter what the official name is it'll be called D&D in general and 5e in specific by just about everyone involved.  So I voted 5th Edition.


			
				fba827 said:
			
		

> D&D Titan edition



If this is the name and it fails would we later call it "D&D Titanic"?

Lan-"sinking fast"-efan


----------



## DangerAbe (Jan 16, 2012)

They should call it Illithid Edition and name all future editions after iconic monsters. Starting with Illithid because they are going to take over our minds!!!


----------



## Mark CMG (Jan 16, 2012)

D&D 5th Edition.  It is what it is and naming it something else doesn't change that.  They should be proud of that name.  It's come a long way.  Naming it 5E isn't going to confuse anyone or cause anyone to dislike the game for seeing the name as some sort of hype.  Without an iteration signifier, it seems rather like claiming the work of those who came before is trumped by this edition and I don't think the designers want to be saying that.

The false naming makes me wonder if someone thinks they are being clever when they try and disguise the iteration of the game.  I recall one employee trying to convince some customers that there wouldn't be a half edition of the game.  Of course, there was but they named it something else.  What that did was cause confusion in the market, make some customers wonder if that employee thought they were being clever (or worse, lying), and generate additional mistrust for the company (that was already beleaguered with problems).


Just make a D&D 5E RPG that everyone feels is D&D and also that everyone feels is an RPG, and it will bear the 5E part proudly.  Now is not the time for clever naming conventions.  And you know what?  A few years in when there's been enough time to assess how things are going, pull the few core books still out in distributioin and announce in advance to retailers and the customer base that you plan to produce a 5.5E, all up front and open, without any of the tricks usually on display to avoid losing sales (which are lost in other ways by such trickery anyway).  This is turning-over-a-new-leaf time.  This is we-want-to-be-trusted-again time.  Let's not see it blown with clever marketing tricks.  Let's see it won through good design, hard work, and honest dealings.


----------



## Brom Blackforge (Jan 16, 2012)

I think it's a mistake to get hung up on what the covers of the books will say. The 3rd and 4th edition core rulebooks didn't announce their edition numbers, but we all knew which edition they were and that's how we referred to them if we needed to be specific about which edition we meant. And way back when 2nd edition came out, the core rulebooks DID say "2nd edition," but if we didn't need to make a point about 2E versus 1E, we'd just say "D&D" or "Dungeons & Dragons." So yes, the bookcovers will probably just say "Dungeons & Dragons," without specifically referring to it as the 5th edition of the game, but that's not determinative and it never has been.


----------



## Roland55 (Jan 16, 2012)

Given their vision and the goal they've stated, there's only one choice:  Dungeons and Dragons.

And I'm quite happy with that.


----------



## tuxgeo (Jan 16, 2012)

The name of the game _doesn't change_ when new editions are published: 
"Dungeons & Dragons" is right. 

Other random comments: 

"Truncheons & Flagons" (a game about town guards visiting a taproom). 

"D&D -- _Vote for Delve in Twenty-Twelve!_" -- because it's based in the USA, and we vote about everything--even about what to call our fantasy game. (And I don't care that the game won't come out until 2013 - 2014.)

"D&D4U" -- because we can't be bothered to type out _hol wrdz_. 

"D&D Modulo 5" -- because of the modular nature; but also including the _5-point design principles_: 5-foot step and square size; 5-point Skill Training bonus; 5-points separating DC levels; 5-member parties; 5 main power sources (martial/divine/arcane/psionic/shadow, with the elements pervading all of them); and 5% increments between results on a d20.


----------



## Griego (Jan 16, 2012)

"Dungeons and Dragons" on the cover, with a gigantic, translucent "5" overlaid on the table of contents of every book. Easy to tell if something is the right edition that way.


----------



## Brom Blackforge (Jan 16, 2012)

tuxgeo said:


> The name of the game _doesn't change_ when new editions are published:
> "Dungeons & Dragons" is right.




No, the name of the GAME doesn't change. But then, we're not talking about what to call the GAME. We're talking about what to call THE NEW EDITION of the game.

So, like the 3.0 and 4E rulebooks before it, the new edition rulebooks will say "Dungeons & Dragons," and that's what we'll continue to call the game. But when we need to refer to the new edition specifically, we need something specific to identify it.

Can you imagine trying to talk to someone who insisted on referring to Texas Hold 'Em only as "Poker" when your goal is to compare it to stud poker or draw poker?


----------



## exmci1996 (Jan 16, 2012)

LurkAway said:


> Names like "D&D Final" and "D&D Ultimate" are tricky. What happens, say, 10-15 years later, when "D&D Final" becomes all bloated and outdated and the core and supplements need be updated again with rules errata, consolidation, etc -- would that next iteration be called "D&D Final Ultimate This Time for Sure Re-Unified Compendium"?




10-15 years later?  The 6th edition will be here sooner than that.


----------



## greywulf (Jan 16, 2012)

I think it will be called "Dungeons and Dragons" - the ampersand will be dropped and replaced with a full "and". This will visually separate it from 3rd and 4th Editions D&D and help emphasize the brand itself. It's Dungeons AND Dragons. 

It's also much easier for use online - those &'s are a pain in URLs 

I would also quite like them to follow tech brands (Apple, Android & Ubuntu) by having codewords for different updates to the rules rather than the current (nigglingly wrong) way we call them 3rd Edition, 4th Edition, etc. They could go alphabetically, picking one monster from the Monster Manual for each letter.

For example, the initial release could by Dungeons and Dragons, Aasimar followed by Bugbear, Catoblepas, etc. The community could vote for the name of the next release. I'd like that.


----------



## Squire James (Jan 17, 2012)

The D&D Holiday Special.


----------



## Reg06 (Jan 17, 2012)

The ampersand will never be dropped. Dungeons & Dragons is the correct spelling of the game- always has been, and always will be. It is iconic.
If you thought the grognards got in an uproar over 4th edition, imagine what they'll do if WotC changes the one thing that has *never* changed since 1974.
Changing the name of the game would be disastrous, and would counteract all of the work WotC plans to do to pull in lovers of the older games.


----------



## migo (Jan 17, 2012)

It isn't necessarily 5th edition, I'm not even sure 3e was correctly named as such. It was such a departure from AD&D2e that it's a different variation, rather than a different edition.

You've got OD&D which is Variation 1, AD&D which is Variation 2, BECMI/RCD&D which is Variation 3, d20 (3e/3.5) which is Variation 4, 4e/Essentials which is Variation 5, and this upcoming version would be Variation 6.

For V2, you've got 2 editions, (AD&D 2nd edition is properly an edition of the same game, given you could play with both editions and not have much trouble, and given the way editions are used for textbooks, 2eRevised would be the 3rd edition due to the layout changes). For V3 you've got 4 editions (B, B/X, BECMI, RC/WI), For V4 you've got 2 editions again, and V5 another 2 editions. Putting the upcoming game as actually being the 13th edition of the game. 

Just calling it Dungeons & Dragons, and avoiding calling it 5th Ed really makes the most sense. If they succeed in their goal, I'd go with colloquially calling it D&D United/Umbrella D&D/etc so either UD&D or D&DU. If they fail.... who really cares?


----------



## dd.stevenson (Jan 17, 2012)

Went with plain old "Dungeons & Dragons".  Of course, that's assuming they actually meet their design goal of supporting every style of play.  If for some reason they can't meet that goal, I'd rather they were honest about it and called the thing fifth edition.


----------



## weem (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm a big fan of *D&D: Generations*, having suggested it a while back, and even recently creating a logo for it for fun...







I wrote about why I thought this name was fitting last week for those interested. 

Of course, many of us are Star Trek fans so we will think of TNG, but honestly, most words/phrases can make many of us think of something other than what it was intended to mean. It doesn't generally take long for that to go away.

That said, I do not expect them to choose this name, I just thought it worked and wanted to see how it "looked". With that said, Jon Schindehette (Sr. Creative Director at WoTC) mentioned in my post that he may "_tuck your naming idea in my pocket for consideration_", so you never know I guess.

One I don't see on the list that I think would also work well is "D&D Legends" (not sure if that has been mentioned by someone here yet).


----------



## Kzach (Jan 17, 2012)

I voted "no qualifier". Mainly because it gives everyone something new to complain about and argue over.

Also, I'd like to see there be a D&D core book that has the very fundamental basics and then EVERYTHING after that be "AD&D", as in it advances the system through modular additions. I think this is a vitally important marketing point. Doing it this way, they can focus on pushing nothing but the D&D core game. Literally forget about advertising anything else and put tons of money and legwork into promoting the core brand. People pick up the advanced rules without any need to advertise them beyond the website and a press release anyway.

This has several fundamentally important aspects inherent within the concept that are desperately needed to fuel the brand. First of all, it promotes ONE version of the game and everything else is considered an add-on of the player's choice. Calling all the new rules in 3.x 'core' was a huge mistake that was then taken to the extreme in 4e and was an underlying reason behind much of the backlash.

Second, it gives everyone an easy avenue to promote the game. Word of mouth and being introduced to the game via friends is a HUGE part of D&D and this has been severely curtailed by the divisions within the hobby. If we all share one common basic source that can be adapted after the fact, then we can all promote that one core product, regardless of our personal fetishes.

Third, it focuses the brand so that consumers know what to look for, what to ask for, what to investigate and gives them a recognisable icon to focus THEIR attention on. D&D has suffered over the years from a large amount of confusing products lines. New people are bewildered by their options. Introducing ONE game to them that later on can be modified as they wish based on their understanding of the game, is incredibly important in gaining new players to the hobby. DDI is great, but the amount of times I've had people stare blankly at me when faced with all their options, even with an Essentials character, makes this a prominent factor in people's take-up, in my opinion.

One D&D to rule them all; and a billion modular Advanced additions to divide and conquer them after the fact


----------



## drow (Jan 17, 2012)

*Dungeons & Dragons*

Dungeons & Dragons on the cover.  everyone will call it 5e, but who cares.

alternatively, Dungeons & Dragons Aeofel.Elhromane.die.die.die
(wil is cool!)


----------



## Inferno! (Jan 17, 2012)

ardoughter said:


> If they select "Dungeons & Dragons" then it is going to be called 5th ed anyway, just to distinguish it from others.



Yep.



OnlineDM said:


> I like Legacies.... and Legacies appeals to me the most among these options.



I kinda like Legacy or Legacies too.

How about Dungeons & Dragons Unity Edition (or Unification) ?

While I hope they can achieve their stated goal of unifying the editions, I have serious doubts.  I am eager to see what they come up with.


----------



## apegod (Jan 17, 2012)

Dungeons & Dragons: The Grand Unification Edition


----------



## Li Shenron (Jan 17, 2012)

Title: "Dungeons & Dragons: Final Edition"
Subtitle: "No really, we mean it this time!"

...

Just call it "Dungeons & Dragons" on the front cover and put "5th edition" in large letters on the back cover.


----------



## gomeztoo (Jan 17, 2012)

Dungeons and Dragons  - 6th Ed.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 17, 2012)

BlackMoria said:


> As if calling it simply Dungeons and Dragons means we will all get together and start singing Kumbaya.  Pffft.



What if they call it "*Dungeons & Dragons: Kumbaya Edition*"? Would that fix everything?


----------



## seti (Jan 17, 2012)

*D&D's new name*

As long as the name isn't this, or anything resembling this, I'm cool.
I'd name it 'Dungeons and Dragons: Fifth Edition' out of respect for words.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jan 17, 2012)

I say...
"Dungeons and Dragons: Pudding Wars Edition"


----------



## erf_beto (Jan 17, 2012)

If it's too much like videogames, _Dungeons & Dragons: Origins_, because Dragon Age was successful, right? 
But if it's too much anime, then it should be _Dungeons & Dragons Z_, which worked for Dragon Ball... 

ok, I'll stop crapping on this thread. 

Anyway, I vote for no qualifier as well. It's ok to reference it as 5th edition though.


----------



## Anguirus (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm glad to see others agree with me to CALL IT WHAT IT IS, the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  It may not be the best marketing move, but it's the most honest move.

They have very ambitious plans for this game, but that does not guarantee its financial success or its legs in the long term OR its success in bringing all players of all editions together.  Right now you have to assume that it won't be any more successful or universal or popular than 3E and 4E, which were the other big WotC rollouts.  So in the future, having the fifth edition of D&D not _called that_ will just create confusion among gamers.

On the other hand, if 5E is everything that they have hoped for, the name doesn't harm them.  Many RPGs have rolled out more editions than D&D.  The newbies and the grognards that they wish to attract won't have any trouble understanding that this is the most recent incarnation of D&D and they would like you to give it a shot.  If 5E is the backwards-compatible edition, well done!  But it doesn't mean that you have to give it some weaksauce marketspeak name.

Although, props for having "D&D Extreme" as one of the poll choices.  That's kind of what I see in my head when I think of any title that's not just "D&D Fifth Edition."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 17, 2012)

3e for the Rules-kings under the sky,
1e for the Dungeon-lords in their halls of stone,
4e for Monsters doomed to die,
One for the Mike Mearls on his dark throne
In the Land of Seattle where the Shadows lie.
One E to rule them all, One E to find them,
One E to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Seattle where the Shadows lie.

...clearly, it should be called "The One Edition."


----------



## Morrus (Jan 17, 2012)

Anguirus said:


> I'm glad to see others agree with me to CALL IT WHAT IT IS, the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  It may not be the best marketing move, but it's the most honest move.




But it's _not _the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  It's something like the 7th or 8th.


----------



## drow (Jan 17, 2012)

*now with more chronomancy*

Dungeons and Dragons 5.5 / Apple / 26


----------



## Brom Blackforge (Jan 17, 2012)

Morrus said:


> But it's _not _the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons. It's something like the 7th or 8th.




As Obi-Wan Kenobi might say, that's true from a certain point of view. (Were the Basic D&D box sets different rules, or simplified versions of 1st Edition?) 

The main thing, though, is that calling it 5th Edition would continue the naming convention that has been in effect since 1989 and the release of 2nd Edition. It would be confusing to have the edition that directly follows 4th Edition be called 7th Edition.


----------



## Brom Blackforge (Jan 17, 2012)

By the way, I just noticed that the poll is actually asking what name should be on the cover of the new books. I think that's a different question than what the new edition should be called - which is what I thought the poll was asking when I voted.


----------



## Daijin (Jan 17, 2012)

Dungeons and Dragons: United.


----------



## patrakis (Jan 18, 2012)

I haven't read all the thread but personnaly, if there had to be a suffix to D&D, i would use the word CLASSIC.

Yep, D&D Classic. After a failure, there is nothing like going back to the classics.

Pat


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 18, 2012)

Dungeons & Dragons - Your Dice Hate You Edition.

That's okay though - my dice hate _everybody!_ All the time, every game, every edition....

The Auld Grump, and that is why I love them.


----------



## Izumi (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm surprised nobody has proposed 'Dungeons & Dragons: The Gathering' yet.


----------



## migo (Jan 18, 2012)

patrakis said:


> I haven't read all the thread but personnaly, if there had to be a suffix to D&D, i would use the word CLASSIC.
> 
> Yep, D&D Classic. After a failure, there is nothing like going back to the classics.
> 
> Pat




Classic D&D is BECMI/RC D&D


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 18, 2012)

I voted Other.

The title should be "D&D: Do or Die Edition" or "D&D: Make It or Break It"

I say this b/c if the $50M "Core Brand" target is legit (and I think it probably is), this is D&D's last chance to reach that status.  

If it does, it will become a core brand with the resources & yes, the revenue requirements to hold onto that title, budget, and staffing.

If it doesn't, one of two things are likely to happen:
1. D&D suffers additional decline as budget & resources are allocated to Core Brands.  D&D continues to exist in some form but in a diminished form compared to 3e or early 4e.

2. Hasbro, which doesn't sell off intellectual properties, shelves D&D for a period of time with the intent of reinventing/relaunching it down the road.


My post has little to do with the game itself, btw.  The modularity talk is intriguing, although I think right now people are assigning their own meaning to the tidbits we're hearing and the final version may differ significantly from those expectations.  It could be a great toolkit or a complete mess.

That said, I think where WotC screwed up was trying to establish D&D as a core brand, rather than treating WotC lines in total as the "WotC Brand" (if such an option was even possible).

This isn't the game environment when D&D launched, nor is it when we had the doldrums of 2e and the implosion of TSR where 3e was viewed with great anticipation.  D&D has more competition (in both media & direct competitors) than it did in either of those earlier scenarios.  It could do everything "right", and still not reach the Core Brand requirements, thus triggering one of the two scenarios I've outlined above.

Hence, D&D: Do or Die Edition.


----------



## Matt James (Jan 18, 2012)

If only half the people who post here on EN world worked for WotC, it might very well be the greatest brand ever with $1b in profits.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 18, 2012)

Matt James said:


> If only half the people who post here on EN world worked for WotC, it might very well be the greatest brand ever with $1b in profits.




If half the people from here worked for WotC, they would've been sued, become bankrupt, possibly responsible for several murders, and would be currently on the run because of the massive fraud and embezzlement they pulled off whilst there; seriously, do you even read these forums?


----------



## Aeolius (Jan 18, 2012)

As a Mac user who has no trouble with an OS named Mac OS X Lion 10.7.2, I think the public can handle D&D V. Perhaps WotC could use a similar tactic and use monster names for new editions. D&D: Mind Flayer? D&D: Beholder?


----------



## Erudite Frog (Jan 18, 2012)

Kzach said:


> seriously, do you even read these forums?




why are you such a tool to everyone?


----------



## Drowbane (Jan 18, 2012)

Front Cover: Dungeons & Dragons
Spine: D&D 5e.

Only a noob is going to not recognize the new books when they come out as 5e (unless WotC makes them look like 4e books, which would be a mistake). So for all the noobs out there, and/or anybody who wasn't aware there *was* a brief 4e the books need to be clearly labeled so that people do not accidently buy acrossed editions.

Back in 2e I used to buy 1e books not knowing the difference... but then again those were backwards compatible and I never had an issue with it. But if I was new and bought 4e books that weren't useful with my brand new 5e... I'd be annoyed.

Edit: please nothing cheesy like "Ultimate", "United", or "Final". This is not the last edition of D&D to come out and it certainly is not going to do anything to heal the damage done by 4e. All they can do is make 5e worth playing and leave it at that.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jan 19, 2012)

The game is Dungeons and Dragons.  That is what should be on the cover.

The edition should be the Tiamat Edition.


----------



## darjr (Jan 19, 2012)

Kzach said:


> If half the people from here worked for WotC, they would've been sued, become bankrupt, possibly responsible for several murders, and would be currently on the run because of the massive fraud and embezzlement they pulled off whilst there; seriously, do you even read these forums?




oh but what fun it would be


----------



## Stalker0 (Jan 19, 2012)

Here's a warning, keep it civil. Feel free to debate, but no personal attacks on other posters.

--Stalker0


----------



## Lanefan (Jan 19, 2012)

Aeolius said:


> [...] I think the public can handle D&D V.



D&D V for Vendetta?


			
				Azgulor said:
			
		

> The title should be "D&D: Do or Die Edition"



Wouldn't that just make it "D or D" instead of "D and D"?  Besides, we don't know if Do or Die will be in the new game yet... 

They could go another route - letters instead of numbers.

We've already had BD&D (D&D Basic) and AD&D (1e) - why not call the new one CD&D, short for Dungeons and Dragons Complete?

Lan-"then again, they could call it Horses and Howitzers and we'd still call it 5e anyway"-efan


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 19, 2012)

I voted Dungeons and Dragons.

But I would also accept Dungeons and Bears, because how often do you encounter a dragon anyway.

And I call it Dice and Monsters to all my little Nieces and Nephews.


----------



## darjr (Jan 19, 2012)

how about AD&D 3rd edition


----------



## SnowBlood (Jan 20, 2012)

I vote for 5th Edition, which is what the majority of regular players will call it anyway and it will save some confusion. 

D&D Next sounds terrible and if they ever make another version or splinter game, Next isn't really Next anymore. Something like D&D Flex or whatever they think is a new core concept for the game this time around; for instance, they could have called 3rd Edition "D&D d20 Edition" or called 4th Edition "D&D Powers Edition". Essentials was a pretty terrible name; don't do it again.


----------



## Kaodi (Jan 20, 2012)

Morrus said:


> But it's _not _the fifth edition of Dungeons and Dragons.  It's something like the 7th or 8th.




Exactly. This and the lesson of Final Fantasy is what I am going to stake my suggestion on.

Here is how I think the next edition(s) should be differentiated in 3 Easy Steps.

1) Just put the name " Dungeons & Dragons " in the proper place on the cover.

2) Figure out how many editions of Dungeons & Dragons there have _really_ been (N).

3) Add a new product numbering scheme to one of the corners corresponding to the number of previous editions plus one (N+1), with three extra digits, such that the PHB is (N+1)001, the DMG (N+1)002, and the MM (N+1)003, and so on with every single product published. If later on there is a new revised edition, up the new PHB to (N+1)501, the DMG to (N+1)502, and the MM (N+1)503, and if there is a completely new edition (N+2)001, ...002, ...03, and so on.

For WotC's part, they should then just let the community decidedwhether to call " N Edition " or " N-thousand Series " (or any D&D Next, or any other name under the Sun) .


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jan 21, 2012)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> In the Land of Seattle where the [-]Shadows[/-] rain clouds lie.



Have you spent much time in Seattle?


----------



## parinho7 (Jan 21, 2012)

I'd like to see "Dungeons & Dragons 3.5"
"Dungeons & Dragons 5 (3.5 extension)" would make me equally happy!!


----------



## r0gershrubber (Jan 21, 2012)

While I'm sure the cover of the book will say "Dungeons and Dragons" as it always has, the new edition will require a unique identifier, and if WotC doesn't provide one the community will.  People call pre-3E D&D things like "first edition" or "second edition" when necessary to communicate clearly even though they were never identified that way before.

I am somewhat inclined to think that even if WotC names the edition something like D&D Next it will still be widely referred to as 5E.


----------



## Argyle King (Jan 21, 2012)

D&D: The edition in which Johnny3d3d's books all come with winning tickets to the Pennsylvania Powerball lottery.


----------



## Dark Herald (Jan 21, 2012)

I think the next name should be;

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Basic 5.0
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Advanced 5.0
DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: Tactical 5.0

(the 5.0 doesn't have to be part of the name)

or for short DUNGEONS & DRAGONS: B.A.T 5.0 

3 different versions to accomodate different styles of play but still being modular in design.


----------



## On Puget Sound (Jan 22, 2012)

Dungeons & Dragons V: Return of the Flumphs


----------



## ProlificVoid (Jan 25, 2012)

*All Editions, All Universes...*

Being as I first encountered and used the concept itself waaay back when as a direct result of the game, I'm partial to something along the lines of:

*Dungeons & Dragons Multiverse (/Multiversal)*

It not only encompasses all editions, but all alternate universes, allowing for multi-genre play as well, which Gary Gygax and at least Rob Kuntz and Jim Ward (off the top of my head) considered to all fall within the umbrella term of "fantasy" in its literal sense.

Cases in point:
- Gary's Greyhawk campaign when the party was whisked away to the Starship Warden (Metamorphosis Alpha), wherein Jim Ward took over as DM for such.
- Re: The work on Castle Greyhawk: I recall reading something relatively recently by Rob Kuntz (Pied Piper Press), wherein he referenced this very concept of what constitutes "fantasy," and in that piece also referred to his work on "The Machine Level" of said Castle Greyhawk.
- Expedition to the Barrier Peaks
- Conversion info fairly galore in the AD&D DMG regarding firearms, etc.


----------



## Jasperak (Jan 28, 2012)

I don't know if my vote has been mentioned yet; can a thread be TL;DR? From what little info I have seen, I think it's most appropriate title might be D&D WOTC. Maybe have a subtitle like: All the best 3e and 4e mechanics with an Old School Point of View.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 29, 2012)

D&D 5e.  That's what it's going to be called by those of us on the internet and, really, who else are we going to listen to?


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Jan 29, 2012)

Cyberzombie said:


> D&D 5e.  That's what it's going to be called by those of us on the internet and, really, who else are we going to listen to?




Well, yeah. It will be 5E. These things take on a momentum and 5E is easier and quicker than D&D Next.


----------



## Cyberzombie (Jan 29, 2012)

Given that D&D 5e has 10 times as many votes as D&D Next, and plain D&D has twice as many votes as that, I think D&D Next is dead in the water.  Assuming they listen to us.


----------



## Tuhljin (Feb 4, 2012)

Cyberzombie said:


> Given that D&D 5e has 10 times as many votes as D&D Next, and plain D&D has twice as many votes as that, I think D&D Next is dead in the water. Assuming they listen to us.




D&D Next is a project codename, anyway. They never intended it to be the actual product name.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 5, 2012)

I think D&D (no qualifier) is the best option. The previous books haven't necessarily displayed edition number all that prominently, and I think people who care about edition number don't need to be told what edition a particular book is. Presumably, it would be clear to a novice which books are part of the 5e landscape and which are not, because each edition has such different design.

The other names didn't really do it for me. The unqualified one is the best way to communicate a message of universality.


----------



## Kaodi (Feb 5, 2012)

7th Edition. Because that is just what it is.


----------



## Gokijin (Feb 7, 2012)

I like "Dungeons and Dragons" as a qualifying name, but if they are bringing every version of D&D into one...I think it deserves the qualifier Legacies. Because this is a compilation of all editions and this is more than 40 years of D&D going into this, it is kind of a "legacy" edition. However, I am sure most of us will just call it "5th Edition" anyways, but I like the idea of this new edition. Its evolving to fit all kinds of play styles and I like the fact you can optimize in more ways than just one. I like the idea of the class you chose to play will offer stat bonuses and the idea that your gear will last longer than one or two sessions. 

I only hope that this new edition will deliver and stand up to all the hype it is currently receiving. I don't care for having a ton of magic items personally, but I like the fact I can play a lot of different classes in more than one way. I am looking forward to this!


----------



## Oliviander (Feb 9, 2012)

*Just for the mischief*

I would really like to call it:

Dungeons & Dragons FIRST EDITION


----------



## Oliviander (Feb 9, 2012)

*Zappa says*

The Return of the Son of Shut up and play yer Dungeons & Dragons


----------



## boerngrim (Feb 19, 2012)

Hasbro Fantasy Role Play 2nd Edition.


----------



## .. (Mar 2, 2012)

Since they won't be able to pull off a new edition after this, might as well just call it 'Dungeons and Dragons'.

It's both an opening of something new, and the last of them to come. Just fitting.


----------



## Ihsahn Satyricon (Mar 14, 2012)

There is a billion version of D&D. It would only be common sense to let people know it's the 5th edition.


----------

