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

[Desdichado]

I just wanted to confirm that you're speaking with no first hand knowledge... regardless of caveat, you don't actually know what you're talking about Didn't miss it, just wanted to confirm it so I could decide whether going back and forth would garner a better understanding. However you don't seem open to more/better information since you've already decided you don't like 5e.

Are you suggesting that I can't engage with the premise of the OP in good faith, trusting that his experience is, in fact, his experience?

Tolerance? I'm not even sure how my tolerance comes into play here. Please elaborate.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

 

[tetrasodium]

If that's not your view on backwards compatibility, then every version of D&D (and most other fantasy RPGs too) is compatible with every other version. It's not a lot of work to run a B/X or AD&D module in 5e, as long as you have a Monster Manual. And you probably don't even need that.

No there were literally people supporting the level of strictness that @Desdichado described with backwards compatibility and the most frustrating thing about it was that wotc doubled down feeding that level of misplaced expectations by continuing to talk up how important they felt backwards compatibility was rather than even mentioning how the GM can generally convert things across with minimal effort and that players should accept their GM's judgement on cross conversion questions that come up. Wotc could have made a dramatically better edition, but instead they shot it in the knee catering to a subset it players they had no intention of actually designing for so they could fail at targeting both groups∆

∆ I don't think I've been at all ambiguous about which group is place where and which group would have considered it a better edition but the statement works both ways.

 

[Zardnaar]

Backwards compatible is only technically correct.

Power creep alone makes things outside Tashas or Mordenkainens fairly crap except maybe the old S tier stuff.

 

[Imaro]

Are you suggesting that I can't engage with the premise of the OP in good faith, trusting that his experience is, in fact, his experience?

I'm suggesting that you should, if you want to speak intelligently on a subject, have knowledge of said subject.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm really not... that sentence made no sense.

 

[Remathilis]

Backwards compatible is only technically correct.

Power creep alone makes things outside Tashas or Mordenkainens fairly crap except maybe the old S tier stuff.

What's the alternative? Nerf everything until Battlerager is viable?

 

[Imaro]

No there were literally people supporting the level of strictness that @Desdichado described with backwards compatibility and the most frustrating thing about it was that wotc doubled down feeding that level of misplaced expectations by continuing to talk up how important they felt backwards compatibility was rather than even mentioning how the GM can generally convert things across with minimal effort and that players should accept their GM's judgement on cross conversion questions that come up. Wotc could have made a dramatically better edition, but instead they shot it in the knee catering to a subset it players they had no intention of actually designing for so they could fail at targeting both groups∆

∆ I don't think I've been at all ambiguous about which group is place where and which group would have considered it a better edition but the statement works both ways.

Emphasis mine... What? The Dev team was pretty explicit about how compatibility worked in a general sense (Use things replaced in '24 vs. '14. You can play with characters from either but they need to be created with their rules, etc.) and gave enough information that anyone who thought this game will be the exact same as the one published in '14 wasn't really paying attention.

 

[Imaro]

What's the alternative? Nerf everything until Battlerager is viable?

The funny thing is '14 was too easy for players but it's not compatible because... '24 is too easy for players. Huh?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The funny thing is '14 was too easy for players but it's not compatible because... '24 is too easy for players. Huh?

I assume the argument is that they made that problem worse. That's certainly the argument I would make.

 

[ECMO3]

I'm not entirely clear on what definitions you're using, and trying to put them together from your posts doesn't quite make sense to me.

"Business success", how did the business fair. Market share, revenue and profit are drivers in that.

I am not talking about being successful in terms of being a good rule set, or getting lots of players or even sales, especially when overprinting causes high sales and low profit.

You also failed to answer my second question - how was qa new edition in 4E a "successful business tactic".

2E' sucess is irrelevant to the discussion unless 4E was also successful

 

[mamba]

What's the alternative? Nerf everything until Battlerager is viable?

balance things to a similar average instead of buffing almost everything and just nerfing the top 1%