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

[dave2008]

All I want is to not be shouted down when I engage with 5e discussions using 3pp, not treating WotC as the gold standard.

I don't know your experience, but as a community we need to face the fact that there is a lot more 3PP content out there than WotC content. I may argue with you, but I have no issue with discussing 3PP content alone with WotC content. I've never given much credence to "official" content.

 

[Mercurius]

On a more serious note, I think we've entered an era in which WotC is less interested in D&D as an RPG, and more as a brand. This has been talked about extensively, but there's a possible/probable result that I don't think is talked about much. Because of this, they want some degree of stability with the game itself - they want to sell "Dungeons & Dragons" in a wide variety of ways, and don't care as much about the actual table top game itself - as a game. So as long as people like the game, they won't change it much.

Meaning, they're no longer run by people who are interested in the evolution of the game itself, imo. They're not thinking, "How do we make D&D better?" but rather, "How do we find more ways to profit off the D&D brand?"

I'm not talking about specific game designers or even the D&D sub-group as a whole, but the decision making folks at WotC and Hasbro - and thus the "bottom line."

To me this is kind of sad. I was never an "edition purist" but always looked forward to new ways the game could be played, whether that was a new edition or an experimental supplement that turned the game a bit on its head (think later 3.5). Meaning, I liked the fact that D&D was, in the end, run by gamers - people that loved the game and wanted to explore it in different ways. But over time, "corporate creep" has gradually taken over - especially over the last five years or so.

 

[Yaarel]

I will be interested to see the upcoming Kyle Brinks interviews. I think / hope we get a more clear direction of where WotC is heading with the OGL, CC, and OneD&D from those. He has been pretty open and responsive since about the 2nd week of January.

Regarding the OGL and CC is pretty clear to me.

What will matter is the future plans for digital D&D. Everything will revolve around "virtual D&D".

The 5e table top games using the 2014 books and the SRD wont really matter anymore.

 

[dave2008]

Let me repeat - OneD&D has flipped feats to ON, so when looking at backwards compatibility we need to consider feats because we are looking at it in the combined context, not in a solely 5e context where they are a variant.

While I agree generally, one of those feats is: ASI (you know the +2 to one or +1 to 2 thing). You can simply say all feats must be ASI and your back to O5e, with the exception of the new background features they are calling 1st level feats (which are otherwise not feats IMO).

 

[dave2008]

On a more serious note, I think we've entered an era in which WotC is less interested in D&D as an RPG, and more as a brand.

We entered that era when Hasbro bought WotC.

 

[dave2008]

Regarding the OGL and CC is pretty clear to me.

What will matter is the future plans for digital D&D. Everything will revolve around "virtual D&D".

The 5e table top games using the 2014 books and the SRD wont really matter anymore.

I'm interested in if they will put more SRDs in the CC or in ORC. I would also like a bit more clarity on if a new SRD for 1D&D will be added to CC and the OGL.

 

[payn]

On a more serious note, I think we've entered an era in which WotC is less interested in D&D as an RPG, and more as a brand. This has been talked about extensively, but there's a possible/probable result that I don't think is talked about much. Because of this, they want some degree of stability with the game itself - they want to sell "Dungeons & Dragons" in a wide variety of ways, and don't care as much about the actual table top game itself - as a game. So as long as people like the game, they won't change it much.

Meaning, they're no longer run by people who are interested in the evolution of the game itself, imo. They're not thinking, "How do we make D&D better?" but rather, "How do we find more ways to profit off the D&D brand?"

I'm not talking about specific game designers or even the D&D sub-group as a whole, but the decision making folks at WotC and Hasbro - and thus the "bottom line."

To me this is kind of sad. I was never an "edition purist" but always looked forward to new ways the game could be played, whether that was a new edition or an experimental supplement that turned the game a bit on its head (think later 3.5). Meaning, I liked the fact that D&D was, in the end, run by gamers - people that loved the game and wanted to explore it in different ways. But over time, "corporate creep" has gradually taken over - especially over the last five years or so.

Thats all right, I think it will be healthy for folks to branch out and not rely on D&D to do all the heavy lifting.

 

[Yaarel]

Here is my perception.

I'm interested in

if they will put more SRDs in the CC

No, they wont.

Only something that changes the math would update the 5.1 SRD.

or in ORC.

No. But this depends on what exactly the ORC looks like.

I would also like a bit more clarity on if a new SRD for 1D&D will be added to CC and the OGL.

The OGL is dead.

Hasbro-WotC will rely on the free advertising that comes from the CC-BY 4.0.

Outside of the 5e SRD, the Hasbro-WotC lawyers will viciously enforce copyright claims.

But. Hasbro-WotC will get away with this "sues regularly" approach, because they will actually support the creativity of unofficial content that comes from the gamers inside the walled garden, in the DMsGuild (or whatever its future incarnation will be called).

 

[Scribe]

All I want is to not be shouted down when I engage with 5e discussions using 3pp, not treating WotC as the gold standard.

I dont think I've seen you shouted down over anything, its not that WotC is the gold standard (far far from it!), its that its the baseline.

 

[Mercurius]

We entered that era when Hasbro bought WotC.

That's true to an extent, but the corporate presence of Hasbro wasn't felt as much until recent years. I mean, certainly, they probably had an influence on edition changes, from 3.5 to 4E, and then the "starting afresh" of 5E. But they seemed to let the game designers design. Meaning, they didn't "George Steinbrenner" D&D. I think that changed once D&D's popularity soared five-ish years ago.

 

[Scribe]

That's true to an extent, but the corporate presence of Hasbro wasn't felt as much until recent years. I mean, certainly, they probably had an influence on edition changes, from 3.5 to 4E, and then the "starting afresh" of 5E. But they seemed to let the game designers design. Meaning, they didn't "George Steinbrenner" D&D. I think that changed once D&D's popularity soared five-ish years ago.

I feel for sure the die was cast with 5e, and once it hit critical levels of success, its been coasting since.

 

[Blue]

While I agree generally, one of those feats is: ASI (you know the +2 to one or +1 to 2 thing). You can simply say all feats must be ASI and your back to O5e, with the exception of the new background features they are calling 1st level feats (which are otherwise not feats IMO).

Sure, but making house rules in not testing backward compatibility.

This isn't saying something is good or bad, or stating our preferences. The point that we have been going back and forth on is what level of backwards compatibility will it have - math being close so you can run old and new characters/spells/aventures/monsters together, or full such that you can mix and match fully, such as a character made partially with 5e and partially OneD&D options.

 

[Umbran]

All I want is to not be shouted down when I engage with 5e discussions using 3pp, not treating WotC as the gold standard.

The thing about the 3pp is that they are, generally, small. Most folks you are talking to will not have whatever products you are speaking about.

Whether or not they are "gold", WotC products are the basic standard, the lingua franca of RPGs. If you want to speak Esperanto, you need to specifically seek out like minded individuals who know it. Everyone else will look at you funny, and go on with what they were doing.

If you have niche tastes, you won't find the mainstream to be a great discussion space.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I dont think I've seen you shouted down over anything, its not that WotC is the gold standard (far far from it!), its that its the baseline.

Shouted down might be hyperbole, but there are definitely folks here who disregard non-WotC 5e.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The thing about the 3pp is that they are, generally, small. Most folks you are talking to will not have whatever products you are speaking about.

Whether or not they are "gold", WotC products are the basic standard, the lingua franca of RPGs. If you want to speak Esperanto, you need to specifically seek out like minded individuals who know it. Everyone else will look at you funny, and go on with what they were doing.

If you have niche tastes, you won't find the mainstream to be a great discussion space.

Not very encouraging, but I'm getting used to being depressed about stuff like that.

 

[Scribe]

Shouted down might be hyperbole, but there are definitely folks here who disregard non-WotC 5e.

Yeah but you cannot help that. There's always going to be some who see 3PP (or mods, in other games) as less than. I do it myself for certain games, while others I even write mods for!

That said, I doubt many look at WotC as the superior option, they just dont want to deal with the complexity or depth that is out there, probably why they go with 5e in the first place.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I would prefer it to be treated differently by the community, mostly so I stop seeing everything in 5e discussions assumed to be whatever WotC put out on the subject, as opposed to the wider 3pp universe of 5e.

Why though, why not treat 1D&D as another 3PP supplement to 5e. That is effectively what it is. So why is the “edition” significant? I mean it is changing less than A5e and that is the same edition as 5e. What is your hang up with the term “edition?” I’m just not seeing how the view intersects with your desire for 3PP inclusion .

 

[Umbran]

Not very encouraging, but I'm getting used to being depressed about stuff like that.

I'm not sure how you could expect it to be otherwise. It would be like walking into a Book Club that had all been reading the Game of Thrones, and you want to talk about your favorite self-published novella by the well-known Dutch author. I mean, that novella might be fabulous, but your audience just isn't familiar with it.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Be that as it may...we are talking about a game here. A game which makes at least a passing claim at some kind of balance, and logical abstraction.

Having the same class, with the same spells, with the same subclasses, have different results based on the rule set or version being used, is a bad look.

Would it make you feel better if they renames things? If everything in 1D&D that was different from O5e had a different name would that work for you?

I honestly ask as I’m thinking about making this suggestion in the next playtest survey.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I guess I just come at it from the other direction. There is going to be consensus on the books/spells/errata, being used from day 0.

??? That is not my experience. When we play the rules evolve as we go. In every edition there are things that don’t work for us and what we add or cut evolves through play. It is most definitely not decided on day 0z