D&D (2024) The impending mess that will be backwards compatibility

[Micah Sweet]

It's funny that most RPGs when releasing a new edition, the changes are mostly what D&D would call a .5 edition. It's mostly D&D (and d20 derived systems like Pathfinder) where editions are radical reinventions. I think if the changes between AD&D -> 3e -> 4e -> 5e weren't as large and invalidating, I don't think people would be treating edition changes as radioactive and WotC wouldn't be afraid to call it a new edition.

True, but WotC is trying to convince people to ignore history. Not impossible, but quite the up hill battle. I wonder if it'll be worth it in the end.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Shakespeare applies.

“What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” - Romeo and Juliet, Act 2, Scene 2.

Whether we call it X.5 or not won't change how it plays, or how it interoperates with previous materials. Function over nomenclature.



I know of no way to measure "size of change". I care about impact of change.

Since the content of the books will be different, we'll need to have a way to differentiate them in conversation. But whether it "deserves" a X.5 isn't a functional question, to my mind. Calling them 5e and 5.5e, or 5e and OneD&D are the same, for me.

I still find it very weird that the contents of the books will be different, but the labeling won't be. It feels...disingenuous.

 

[Emberashh]

I don't know what world people live in in which there's actually players that think, "The DM be damned - because WotC said!"

I live in a world where white room theorycrafters have a disproportionate effect on the zeitgeist of the game and will get much worse when directly permitted by the games rules to use unbalanced material that isn't actually compatible with the current iteration of the game.

 

[mamba]

thats the thing,,, something new built from the bones of what came before that re engages andd rejuvinates the player base scares them... its to hard

what do you think 1DD is supposed to do if not engage and rejuvenate the player base?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Ah, I get where you're coming from now.

Still don't really agree because I think clearly labeling versions is a good thing. Look at software; it's just a better way of showing what's going on than obfuscating it (on purpose or not).

Oh we don't disagree. Had they been organized on the beginning, they could have come up with a truly workable way to track revisions. They didn't. What I'm trying to say is: The community arguing over what to call it (in particular trying to use 5.5e or 6e) just further obfuscates the issue. It is currently "OneD&D" and will most likely be called "50th Anniversary D&D" by WotC. Calling it anything else is both stubborn "ackshully" AND factually incorrect. But the community will do what it will do. (Which is probably going to be 5.5. Ugh.)

It does give some idea of intent and desire thought.

Sure, but as much as I don't like the last UA's Druid, I still don't know if I will like the 2024 Druid.

Aside from cautionary "don't do THAT WotC!" (Which is the point of the playtest), there's not much to go on to say that the 2024 classes will be "worse". That's just projecting ones fears.

Which is fine to do, but ought to be understood for what it is.

 

[TheSword]

Firstly, our group has determined to start playing with One D&D rules as they are released. So I have a OD&D rogue/bard multiclass character in Scarlet Citadel next to a 5e wizard. There have been zero problems… I don’t even think it’s noticeable… even I forgot until I saw this thread, that’s how little of a problem it is. If that isn’t backwards compatible, I don’t know what is! I love that, evolution not revolution.

Secondly, as @Mercurius put expertly, the written framework of rules don’t preclude the social conventions of the gaming table. OD&D isn’t something that can be done to you. You cant be a victim of the new edition. You either adopt it or you don’t. If you don’t want to play the new rules but the rest of the table do, then it’s exactly like if you want the game to start at 7pm and everyone else wants 7:30. Come to an agreement like adults… or don’t and suffer or leave. It’s all optional.

Organized play is great, but I don’t want OD&D designed to conform to the arbitrary restrictions of AL. That’s not how most people play. AL can and has always, put it’s own restrictions in place above and beyond for the sake of practicality and player expectations and there’s nowt wrong with that.

 

[Olrox17]

As someone who tried to play one of the interesting fighters post Essentials, I'm gonna have to disagree. Essentials only groups sprang up like mushrooms and while maybe you could busk a DM into letting you paly a PH 1 fighter, there was no way in hell to play bravua or anything else from the Power Books because 'they weren't Essentials'.

Really? That’s weird to me. WotC even went through the trouble of updating each O4e class when Essentials came out, to adapt them to the new format. Even giving them new names to better distinguish them.

If people thought that playing essentials alongside O4e was too much, then 5.5 really stands zero chance of achieving backwards compatibility.

 

[mamba]

I still find it very weird that the contents of the books will be different, but the labeling won't be. It feels...disingenuous.

There has ‘always’ been a PHB, DMG and MM. You can tell the versions apart by the cover

 

[Vaalingrade]

Oh we don't disagree. Had they been organized on the beginning, they could have come up with a truly workable way to track revisions. They didn't. What I'm trying to say is: The community arguing over what to call it (in particular trying to use 5.5e or 6e) just further obfuscates the issue. It is currently "OneD&D" and will most likely be called "50th Anniversary D&D" by WotC. Calling it anything else is both stubborn "ackshully" AND factually incorrect. But the community will do what it will do. (Which is probably going to be 5.5. Ugh.)

We're using the categorization that's been in place the last 20 years. A 1.0 is when the baseline rules change, a .5 is when revenue has caught up to actual ideas and it's time to tweak things to shore things up until executive bravery allows for a new 1.0.

Also, if they hadn't chosen violence and picked a codename that sounds like a cult of early 90's ska song, we wouldn't be offering better names.

Sure, but as much as I don't like the last UA's Druid, I still don't know if I will like the 2024 Druid.

Aside from cautionary "don't do THAT WotC!" (Which is the point of the playtest), there's not much to go on to say that the 2024 classes will be "worse". That's just projecting ones fears.

Which is fine to do, but ought to be understood for what it is.

If we can't use what they want to do as a barometer for what they're going to do unless stopped, I'm not sure anything has a point anymore.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

what do you think 1DD is supposed to do if not engage and rejuvenate the player base?

it is a way to sell phb with errata, it's standing in the middle of the road and getting hit by cars going both ways... it's enough new that it will change the current game but not enough new to revelutionize the game