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

[Clint_L]

We entered that era when Hasbro bought WotC.

I dunno - I read Game Wizards last summer. TSR was mighty keen on D&D the brand. Gygax went to Hollywood to try to turn it into various entertainment properties. TSR were just terrible at business.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Here is my perception.




No, they wont.

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


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


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).

That is complete, and basically unfounded, speculation.

 

[Yaarel]

That is complete, and basically unfounded, speculation.

Sorry. But the OGL 1.0a is dead.

Independent publishers who have relied on the OGL in the past do well to move on to the ORC.


While technically, companies could succumb to the temptation of publishing via the DMsGuild, Hasbro-WotC views any successful companies as "competitors" and will seek to destroy these companies at a time of their choosing.


Meanwhile, besides the minimalist approach to the CC SRD, Hasbro-WotC will never use the OGL again, not in the genuine sense of an "open license".

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Sorry. But the OGL 1.0a is dead.

Independent publishers who have relied on the OGL in the past do well to move on to the ORC.


While technically, companies could succumb to the temptation of publishing via the DMsGuild, Hasbro-WotC views any successful companies as "competitors" and will seek to destroy these companies.


Meanwhile, besides the minimalist approach to the CC SRD, Hasbro-WotC will never use the OGL again, not in the genuine sense of an "open license".

OGL was one part, CC was the other part. They said before the release of CC SRD that they planned to release more editions, so who knows. I know you don’t know and neither do I, and nothing you have said has convinced me you have any greater understanding of Hasbro/WotC current plans than I do. In fact, your attitude makes me think you have even less of an understanding than I do.

 

[Yaarel]

OGL was one part, CC was the other part. They said before the release of CC SRD that they planned to release more editions, so who knows. I know you don’t know and neither do I, and nothing you have said has convinced me you have any greater understanding of Hasbro/WotC current plans than I do. In fact, your attitude makes me think you have even less of an understanding than I do.

We know. They said it in their faqs.

They will ONLY update the CC SRD ... IF ... it is necessary to maintain "compatibility" with current Hasbro-WotC products.

But Hasbro-WotC wont donate future products to an open license.



The DMsGuild is a game changer.

People can creatively play with protected Hasbro-WotC products while inside the walled garden.

This is the future that Hasbro-WotC pursues.

The open license is over.



The overreaching OGL 1.1 tried to assassinate the OGL 1.0a.

Hasbro-WotC wants the OGL 1.0a dead.

They will never do an OGL 1.0a again.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

We know. They said it in their faqs.

They will ONLY update the CC SRD ... IF ... it is necessary to maintain "compatibility" with current Hasbro-WotC products.

But Hasbro-WotC wont donate future products to an open license.



The DMsGuild is a game changer.

People can creatively play with protected Hasbro-WotC products while inside the walled garden.

This is the future that Hasbro-WotC pursues.

The open license is over.

Well actually that is not what they said (IIRC), but close, and they also said they would release more editions in a FAQ less than 2 weeks ago. Things change, even FAQ responses!

Also, you still have no clue what what they’re plans are.

 

[Scribe]

??? 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

Of the campaign? I'm fine with the rules evolving (as long as its actually an evolution...) over the life of a product, but in mid campaign? I'm not a fan of just changing things up on a whim/errata.

 

[Scribe]

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.

Probably yeah? Or just they can drop the pretense and say 'this is the updated version'. That would be ideal in these small edge cases.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Of the campaign? I'm fine with the rules evolving (as long as its actually an evolution...) over the life of a product, but in mid campaign? I'm not a fan of just changing things up on a whim/errata.

We have only played one campaign in 5.e since switching over in 2014 (15th lvl now) and we have changed several rules as we go. That is just how we play and it works for us. We see no need to wait for another campaign that may never happen!

 

[Scribe]

We have only played one campaign in 5.e since switching over in 2014 (15th lvl now) and we have changed several rules as we go. That is just how we play and it works for us. We see no need to wait for another campaign that may never happen!

Yeah thats fine, 100%. Just doesnt work for me personally.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Yeah thats fine, 100%. Just doesnt work for me personally.

I imagine your not alone in that!

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah thats fine, 100%. Just doesnt work for me personally.

I like the continual updates.

At the same time, it might work better as a kind of beta-testing, like the UAs, kept separately from the official game. Then, the popular content can be officially incorporated at "edition update" intervals.

So there would always be two versions of the game at the same time. The official one that is steadier, and the experimental one that is more fluid.

DMs who prefer the steadier game, can still pick-and-choose from the experimental game.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not the one presenting the edge case though. Is it one? Yes, agreed. Does it need to be one? No. I mean to me, its a simple matter of agreeing on the rule set, and yes that includes errata, version, whatever.

The concept of the edge case though, that out of 'compatibility' we can use the same class, same subclass, and same spell, yet have something different in practice? Thats a flaw, and I just wouldnt have it happen.

But in practice who cares?

How often have you had two players take the same class right down to identical class choices? Two clerics of the same deity in a group? Two fighters with the same fighting style and subclass?

It’s such a tiny edge case that it can be ignored. Why is this even an issue. It’s virtually never going to happen.

 

[SteveC]

My perspective is that now more than ever, 6E needs to be significantly different from 5E. If I can play and run 6E with my old books, or with a third party game, why would I buy a new PHB or DMG? If I can run existing monsters unchanged, why do I need a new MM? And if I can do all of this with third party games that might also be more to my tastes, why wouldn't I just do that? If it's compatible to the point where the books are interchangeable, why would I want to buy it?

It's the new shiny, and there will be a lot of people who do buy it just for that reason.

WotC has released a fully compatible edition upgrade once before with Essentials, where you could use your original PHB with the Essentials books entirely, and that edition didn't exactly set the world on fire.

I don't really know what the future will bring, but WotC (and TSR before it) always talked about compatibility for edition changes and with a really modest exception (4E Essentials) they never really were when the books were released.

 

[Hussar]

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

Not to be personal here but talking about 3pp is very much not why you get pushback. The reason you get so much pushback is that you insist that these massive changes have been made that have “forced” you to choose 3pp. IOW endless, repeatedly incredibly negative statements about all things WotC is why you are getting shouted down.

 

[Scribe]

But in practice who cares?

How often have you had two players take the same class right down to identical class choices? Two clerics of the same deity in a group? Two fighters with the same fighting style and subclass?

It’s such a tiny edge case that it can be ignored. Why is this even an issue. It’s virtually never going to happen.

Realistically you are right.

Most issues we all discuss here, are the same though.

 

[Hussar]

Realistically you are right.

Most issues we all discuss here, are the same though.

But if you know that, then why the insistence that it’s a problem?

The conversation is supposed to be about compatibility. This is a potential problem I suppose but in actual play will very very rarely be an issue.

 

[Scribe]

But if you know that, then why the insistence that it’s a problem?

The conversation is supposed to be about compatibility. This is a potential problem I suppose but in actual play will very very rarely be an issue.

Because to some folks, it is a problem. Not a back breaker, not an 'unplayable' but a problem all the same.

I mean its like anything here. There is not I would argue, a single issue on the 'often debated' list, that is an actual problem at the table, unless one plays with either obnoxious DM's, or obnoxious players, or both.

At which point the problem is actually between the table, and the chair.

 

[TwoSix]

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

A lot of 3pps that have a decent number of followers have Discords where you can find some good discussion around using the 3pp material.

 

[dave2008]

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

I didn't think I was talking about house rules so I am confused by this comment.

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.

Well with the current playtest we (me and my group) and others I have read on these forums have mixed and match classes and subclasses from the playtest and '14 PHB. Now it is not the final product so I need to reserve judgement, but it works with the playtest documents.