D&D (2024) So Will 'OneD&D' (6E) Actually Be Backwards Compatible?

[Jer]

New compatible rules won't do that, either. They will need to offer other things as incentives, which they can do right now with 5e.

I mean, yeah. That's what I think they're doing actually. They're just branding it as "OneD&D" to get ahead of people wanting to call it 5.5e or 6e because they know that edition changes have historically been kind of bad for retaining players. But mostly I think they're focusing on giving players incentives to switch over to their tweaked character classes while doing as little as possible to disrupt things for the DMs (who they must know by now are the ones who end up making the decisions about what does and doesn't get played, since they have to be willing to run it).

Will they succeed? I think that's the $64K question.

 

[Maxperson]

Compatible for a TTRPG just means a little (or a lot) of extra work. Or just wing it like I do.

That's by definition not backwards compatible.

 

[Jer]

WotC will need things to be more drastic if they want to produce a new OGL and gain control of the VTT market.

OH - I see. We're coming at this with different perspectives.

I don't think WotC will do that at all. I think they wanted to break the OGL because they know they can't change D&D radically away from 5e and have their plans work, so they wanted it gone so they could have a monopoly.

I think they'll continue to go forward with their plans without their monopoly rather than change gears suddenly to a new strategy. But then, they've done dumber things in the last month so they may not.

 

[Clint_L]

Not really. If that's the best that they can do a lot of people aren't going to be making the switch. Further, if that's 5.5e, then this whole playtesting this is a farce. Monsters of the Multiverse may have some similarities to what is happening, but it can't be all that there is. And after this fiasco of the last few weeks, WotC will need things to be more drastic if they want to produce a new OGL and gain control of the VTT market.

WotC is not going to produce a radically new version of the game. That would be like repeating 4e but on steroids, because 5e is exponentially more popular than 3e ever was. With the 5.1 SRD in the CC, that would be daring someone to make Pathfinder 3.0.

They've already said they are sticking with 5e and making incremental changes. They also don't want everyone to switch to a new edition. They wanted to keep building on what they've got. This was the main point of OneD&D - they could not have been plainer.

DnDBeyond is now the heart of D&D from WotC's perspective. If you are proposing a radically new edition, explain how that works with DnDBeyond.

Edit: They can gain control of the VTT tabletop because they still control D&D IP and they control DnDBeyond. They have millions of users who already routinely use a digital interface that integrates all of their WotC material.

 

[Maxperson]

WotC is not going to produce a radically new version of the game. That would be like repeating 4e but on steroids, because 5e is exponentially more popular than 3e ever was. With the 5.1 SRD in the CC, that would be daring someone to make Pathfinder 3.0.

That's a False Dichotomy. The option are not so close to 5e that it's not different enough and so radically different that it's another 4e. There are options in the middle where we still play the D&D that we know and love, but different enough from 5e that they could make a new OGL

They've already said they are sticking with 5e and making incremental changes. They also don't want everyone to switch to a new edition. They wanted to keep building on what they've got. This was the main point of OneD&D - they could not have been plainer.

They said that BEFORE their plans fell through on OGL 1.0a. Plans can and often do change when things like that occur.

Edit: They can gain control of the VTT tabletop because they still control D&D IP and they control DnDBeyond. They have millions of users who already routinely use a digital interface that integrates all of their WotC material.

A lot of those D&D beyond accounts have them because places like Foundry that do VTT better use D&D beyond content.

 

[Parmandur]

Not really. If that's the best that they can do a lot of people aren't going to be making the switch. Further, if that's 5.5e, then this whole playtesting this is a farce. Monsters of the Multiverse may have some similarities to what is happening, but it can't be all that there is. And after this fiasco of the last few weeks, WotC will need things to be more drastic if they want to produce a new OGL and gain control of the VTT market.

In terms of Monster design, yup, that's it. Also Species design, since the UA PHB proposals all follow the MotM formatting and rules. The new Monster Manual will have new art and new fluff, as well as new stat blocks, but...it will work with older material.

 

[Parmandur]

That's by definition not backwards compatible.

So far, everything is compatible with like 2 or 3 sidebars that will fit in thebPHB. No reason to suspect more than that is needed.

 

[Blue]

By the "numbers will be in the same ballpark so you can play new in an old adventure or vice versa" it will be backward compatible.

In the "you can freely mix-and-match all of this material while making characters, planning sessions including monsters, spells and treasure, and it just works together", then no, it's not backwards compatible.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

If 5.5 doesn't change significantly enough, a lot of people won't bother to buy it and will just keep playing with the books that they already have. If it does change significantly enough that people need to buy the new books, it's not going to be backwards compatible. I think it will change enough that backwards compatibility will not happen.

I think people will seamlessly continue buying the new ‘24 PHB in equal or more numbers as they do the ‘14 PHB, because it is a minor update to 5e, and that is what they (WotC) want. They want to maintain book sales while pushing more load into DND beyond

 

[Faolyn]

WotC is not going to produce a radically new version of the game. That would be like repeating 4e but on steroids, because 5e is exponentially more popular than 3e ever was. With the 5.1 SRD in the CC, that would be daring someone to make Pathfinder 3.0.

They've already said they are sticking with 5e and making incremental changes. They also don't want everyone to switch to a new edition. They wanted to keep building on what they've got. This was the main point of OneD&D - they could not have been plainer.

DnDBeyond is now the heart of D&D from WotC's perspective. If you are proposing a radically new edition, explain how that works with DnDBeyond.

Edit: They can gain control of the VTT tabletop because they still control D&D IP and they control DnDBeyond. They have millions of users who already routinely use a digital interface that integrates all of their WotC material.

They don't need to make it radically different. They need to make it different enough.

For instance (in a completely made-up example), they could keep it mostly as is but move away from bounded accuracy. They could say that limiting magic weapons to just +3 just isn't fun anymore and people want their character's stats to be able to go up to 30 now instead of 20, and monster stats go up to 40. It's a tiny change that won't affect low-level play or even be hard to incorporate into the game, since it would mostly involve changing monsters like archfiends, ancient dragons, and the tarrasque. Even if they change nothing else, that would be enough to make the games incompatible enough.

And how it works with DDB is simple. You simply choose which edition you're playing when you start imputing your stuff into it. Even if it's only a simple tagging system, that's enough to keep them separate.