D&D 5E I feel like the surveys gaslit WotC about """"Backwards Compatibility""""

[Yaarel]

Maybe: I think more time makes further changes even less and less likely. There is no ROI reason for WotC to make those changes: future fans won't care, and itnwould tick off people who had been playing for at that point theoretically decades. I'm sticking to 2024 being the most radical departure D&D rules will see moving forward, not a stop-gap to some future changes.

It depends. Sometimes things that seemed taken for granted earlier, come to be viewed as painful later.

Consider the lack of systematization that led to 3e. The lack of balance plus the awkwardness of vancian casting that led to 4e. The inflexibility that led to 5e. Now the deadliness of low levels and the shift in the meaning of the term "race", leading to 5e 2024.

A difficulty that is taken for granted in the past, wont necessarily be ignored in the future.


But ultimately, there is no way to change D&D without convincing D&D players at large to want to change it. There are no short cuts around democracy. (No healthy shortcuts anyway.)

 

[mamba]

Certainly a big part of it. I'd like to think the designers also had legitimate creative reasons for trying something new, but maybe that's just wishful thinking?

they certainly were not the main drivers for new editions. I see it the reverse way, needing a new edition was the reason why they could be / had to be more creative, without that need we get something a lot more like 2024

 

[Parmandur]

they certainly were not the main drivers for new editions. I see it the reverse way, needing a new edition was the reason why they could be / had to be more creative, without that need we get something a lot more like 2024

However, History seems to have largely proven that approach was a mistake: we know that 2024 has already outsold the lifetime sales of the 3E, 3.5, and 4E rulebooks. "Needing" a new publishing to revive sales and refresh stuff that is dated (Race to Species, new art aimed at current styles, etc.) Is NOT well served by upsetting the rules.

 

[Alzrius]

So it's not actually a rule, at least not one that's part of the core books it ostensibly regulates.

I wonder why they didn't print this in the PHB?

I'm a little surprised myself, but only a little; while I might be forgetting something, I can't recall ever seeing a set of Core Rulebooks openly refer to the usability of a prior edition. (I think the closest I can recall is the reprinted AD&D 2E Core Rulebooks including a sidebar that they weren't a 3rd Edition.)

 

[Imaro]

all good, just clarifying it since there are different threads going on in parallel

No worries... was just confused, thought I might have accidentally quoted you at some point.

 

[mamba]

However, History seems to have largely proven that approach was a mistake: we know that 2024 has already outsold the lifetime sales of the 3E, 3.5, and 4E rulebooks. "Needing" a new publishing to revive sales and refresh stuff that is dated (Race to Species, new art aimed at current styles, etc.) Is NOT well served by upsetting the rules.

I agree that needing a new version is not where you want to be as a publisher, I am not sure we can call creating these new editions at the time a mistake however. The sales were unsustainably low, so they had to do something and a new edition was the surest way to rekindle interest. It clearly worked, but it followed the same trajectory of falling sales again. Without new editions D&D would have died a long time ago, why 5e succeeded where all others failed is certainly an interesting question.

 

[Yaarel]

why 5e succeeded where all others failed is certainly an interesting question.

The reason 5e succeeded, is doing surveys to find out what most customers wanted.

That earlier editions of D&D didnt do this in any extensive way, is amazing.

 

[mamba]

The reason 5e succeeded, is doing surveys to find out what most customers wanted.

it contributed, I don't think it was the only criteria

That earlier editions of D&D didnt do this in any extensive way, is amazing.

agreed, guess 4e drove that lesson home, finally

 

[ECMO3]

You don't think the small changes in design, lore usage and style WotC has been making couldn't benefit from further development currently hampered by their "backwards compatibility" initiative?

FWIW I don't.

 

[ECMO3]

Do they want that? Has adoption of 5.5 over its predecessor been so enthusiastic that we can count on that opinion?

It depends on the metric. The new 2024 rulebooks are vastly outselling the previous expansion books published in the last few years, so if your metric is popularity in terms of digital sales then the answer is yes.