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

[mamba]

At the barest minimum... if a person thinks there has to be "game balance" between something in the 2024 book and something within the 2014 book, then they will never be considered compatible.

Of course... there are plenty of things in the 2014 book that aren't even balanced with other things within the 2014 book, which means by that measure the 2014 book isn't even compatible with itself. So thus any compatibility with 2024 would be statistically impossible

or you have this backwards and the same level of imbalance means that 2014 and 2024 are compatible, because I have not seen anyone argue that 2014 is not compatible with itself

 

[DEFCON 1]

or you have this backwards and the same level of imbalance means that 2014 and 2024 are compatible, because I have not seen anyone argue that 2014 is not compatible with itself

Whichever direction you want to write the throughline! Exactly!

If the Beastmaster Ranger, 4 Elements Monk, and Sorcerer class (all of which have been claimed to be "unbalanced" and weak sauce over and over these past 8 years by every player and their mother) do not make the 2014 book incompatible with itself... then having a 2024 Ranger made that is more powerful than a 2014 Ranger but is now balanced with the other classes in the 2024 book does not mean the 2024 and 2014 books are incompatible either.

Stuff in the 2024 book will be better balanced with itself-- which means ipso facto it will be unbalanced against some stuff in the 2014 book. That does not make them incompatible. Because if (general) you argue it does... it means you also believe the underpowered stuff in the 2014 book is already incompatible with the stuff it's being balanced against in that very same book.

Hopefully... no one is arguing that. Because it's a bad argument that is easily disproven.

 

[SteveC]

It seems people have a lot of faith in "WotC says it will be backwards compatible." I have to shake my head at that. 6E is over a year away, and WotC has a whole slate of products coming out during that time. "We have a new edition coming out, so these books have a short lifespan to them..." is not exactly something that will make books fly off the shelves.

Again, compatibility is something that TSR/Wizards has discussed since 1E became 2E, and with the exception of Essentials, it has never worked out.

I'm not saying it won't be an Essentials situation here, but that would be the exception and not the rule. And once again, an effectively backwards compatible game opens us up to a situation where products like Mayfair Games Role Aids or Judges Guilds Universal Fantasy products are quite possible, which TSR sued over in the past.

 

[mamba]

It seems people have a lot of faith in "WotC says it will be backwards compatible." I have to shake my head at that. 6E is over a year away, and WotC has a whole slate of products coming out during that time. "We have a new edition coming out, so these books have a short lifespan to them..." is not exactly something that will make books fly off the shelves.

we are not operating in a vacuum here, the monsters were revised in MMotM, the races in Tasha’s, 1DD is just following an existing trajectory and the playtest supports this notion.

I do not see WotC wanting a large difference, as they do not want to split the 5e base. This alone gives them incentive to remain compatible

 

[Parmandur]

It seems people have a lot of faith in "WotC says it will be backwards compatible." I have to shake my head at that. 6E is over a year away, and WotC has a whole slate of products coming out during that time. "We have a new edition coming out, so these books have a short lifespan to them..." is not exactly something that will make books fly off the shelves.

Again, compatibility is something that TSR/Wizards has discussed since 1E became 2E, and with the exception of Essentials, it has never worked out.

I'm not saying it won't be an Essentials situation here, but that would be the exception and not the rule. And once again, an effectively backwards compatible game opens us up to a situation where products like Mayfair Games Role Aids or Judges Guilds Universal Fantasy products are quite possible, which TSR sued over in the past.

No need to look to their words, they have released concrete rules which are compatible already. The recent books, since Tasha's, have already been futureproofed: we've been playing with OneD&D Monster and player options for a couple years now.

 

[Faolyn]

we are not operating in a vacuum here, the monsters were revised in MMotM, the races in Tasha’s, 1DD is just following an existing trajectory and the playtest supports this notion.

I do not see WotC wanting a large difference, as they do not want to split the 5e base. This alone gives them incentive to remain compatible

I don't see why not. Every other time, they (and TSR) have moved on to the next edition with the assumption that most people are going to move with them.

 

[SteveC]

No need to look to their words, they have released concrete rules which are compatible already. The recent books, since Tasha's, have already been futureproofed: we've been playing with OneD&D Monster and player options for a couple years now.

This is one of those moments where I'll quote Jane Austen: "believe that if it gives you comfort." There's a huge difference between what WotC says, their playtest materials, and what finally comes out. I did the 5E playtest and there were quite a few changes along the way. What will we end up with? Don't know. It really depends on what WotC intends to do with the product line for 6E. And it is entirely in their interest to keep the product line selling now.

Is that a harsh way to look at things? Yes, yes it is. Is it warranted? I suppose that also gets back to anyone's opinion on WotC before the OGL issue.

 

[Parmandur]

This is one of those moments where I'll quote Jane Austen: "believe that if it gives you comfort." There's a huge difference between what WotC says, their playtest materials, and what finally comes out. I did the 5E playtest and there were quite a few changes along the way. What will we end up with? Don't know. It really depends on what WotC intends to do with the product line for 6E. And it is entirely in their interest to keep the product line selling now.

Is that a harsh way to look at things? Yes, yes it is. Is it warranted? I suppose that also gets back to anyone's opinion on WotC before the OGL issue.

Sure, it's also in their interest to keep the lone selling past 2024. I dunno if you noticed, but Tyranny of Dragons just got a 9tj anniversary re-release, and can be found on Target shelves. They have a vested financial interest in taking advantage of their backlog, and not rocking the boat for Beyond users. I trust their financial incentives will win out.

 

[SteveC]

Sure, it's also in their interest to keep the lone selling past 2024. I dunno if you noticed, but Tyranny of Dragons just got a 9tj anniversary re-release, and can be found on Target shelves. They have a vested financial interest in taking advantage of their backlog, and not rocking the boat for Beyond users. I trust their financial incentives will win out.

But this is also in line with what you do at the end of an edition: you make products that are callbacks to older ones. An anniversary edition (and I have some of those from back in the 2E days on the book shelf behind me) is a limited print run that you intend to sell through.

At the start of an edition, you plan to make new versions of all of the old products to sell again. I had both "Sword and Fist" and "Complete Warrior" back in the day. Now with 5E there aren't that many of those products that even exist. Will WotC want to keep selling Monsters of the Multiverse after 6E launches? I expect that they'd just sell a print run and then come up with an entirely new version. That would be something they could sell to everyone, not just to new DMs. Once a print run sells out, I doubt we'll see new runs of anything as we get closer to launch for the new edition. I suppose it depends on how fast a print run sells, though. I expect smaller print runs and being more conservative until we get an idea of how well the existing edition is still selling. My skills with Amazon searches tell me it is still selling pretty well.

 

[mamba]

I don't see why not. Every other time, they (and TSR) have moved on to the next edition with the assumption that most people are going to move with them.

not sure about that, because that has been consistently wrong.

1e to 2e lost 50% of sales, no idea about 3e (clearly it gained players, just not sure about numbers) but that was a very different scenario, 3e to 4e did not work out either and 5e has basically been a fresh start more than anything because of that.
If this shows us anything, then that the player base does not switch to the next edition.

So I definitely understand why WotC does not want 1DD to be seen as a new edition and to maintain compatibility with 5e