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

[Clint_L]

DDB has what? A few million subscribers? A good chunk of those are free accounts to get info, made a free account and just don't use it, or who use the DM's stuff for free. Meanwhile there are an estimated 50 million D&D players out there.

DDB is a very small fraction of D&D players. The vast majority are pen and pencil tabletop players. Saying DDB will make it easy is a Red Herring. The focus needs to be on the tabletop players.

First, that 50 million number was vague, unsourced, and specifically referred to the entire lifespan of D&D, not current users.

Secondly, DDB has 15million or so accounts, and several millions of paid subscribers. And growing fast. You are kidding yourself if you don't think it's where D&D already is.

Edit: WotC aren't going to call it "OneD&D" either. They are going to call it "D&D." You can insist that it is really 5.5e or 6.0e or Strawberry Vanilla e or whatever you want.

 

[Loren the GM]

No, absolutely not.

Windows PCs are uniquely crappy here. That's the issue. In other situations where backwards compatibility is claimed it's usually either genuinely seamless, or extremely low effort (but is rarely claimed as universal).

Absolutely yes. That is how Windows works, and it is the most used OS in the world.

Point being, Windows is not incorrect to claim backwards compatibility. The end user experience isn't always great, and yes, it might be a crappy OS (hello from my Mac!). But it is backwards compatible.

Whether you like how WotC implements backwards compatibility, being completely seamless and require no effort on the part of the end user isn't a requirement for it to be compatible.

 

[Maxperson]

First, that 50 million number was vague, unsourced, and specifically referred to the entire lifespan of D&D, not current users.

Secondly, DDB has 15million or so accounts, and several millions of paid subscribers. And growing fast. You are kidding yourself if you don't think it's where D&D already is.

Edit: WotC aren't going to call it "OneD&D" either. They are going to call it "D&D." You can insist that it is really 5.5e or 6.0e or Strawberry Vanilla e or whatever you want.

First, the article I read was as of January of 2023, not the older article you are referencing. Second, as of April of 2022 there were 10 million DDB accounts, a huge number of which don't pay. Only the DM needs the books and a large number are just free accounts that haven't shut down, are there for the playtest, etc.

Even if every one of those 10 million accounts paid, though, it still wouldn't equal what they make from physical books. The highest account is less than $60 a year and books are 40% cheaper, AND there are fewer accounts than hard copy players without account AND D&D beyond users by hard copy books, too.

 

[mamba]

Even if every one of those 10 million accounts paid, though, it still wouldn't equal what they make from physical books. The highest account is less than $60 a year and books are 40% cheaper, AND there are fewer accounts than hard copy players without account AND D&D beyond users by hard copy books, to0.

Books have about a 50% markup, so WotC gets maybe $15 per book (there are plenty of books that cost $30 or less on Amazon and are actually cheaper than the DDB version). They make more per digital book on DDB than per physical book...

 

[Maxperson]

Books have about a 50% markup, so WotC gets maybe $15 per book (there are plenty of books that cost $30 or less on Amazon and are actually cheaper than the DDB version). They make more per digital book on DDB than per physical book...

There are still a metric crapton more physical books sold than electronic ones.

 

[mamba]

There are still a metric crapton more physical books sold than electronic ones.

to the detriment of WotC’s bottom line.

I assume they still sell more books than files, but I have no idea by how much. I doubt you do either, but if you do, some source would be great

What is a metric ton more? 10 times as many? 2 to 3 times as many? I very much doubt they manage the former and assume they fall somewhere in the lower half of the latter. Not what I would call a metric ton…

 

[Parmandur]

I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, the DM is a human being at the table, not a machine. I mean, by that logic, third edition would be backwards compatible with 1e and 2e. And 4e would be backwards compatible with 3e, etc. And 5e would be backwards compatible with 4e, all previous editions of dnd, and perhaps even scrabble, chess and monopoly. As long as the DM is slaving away to make it possible, that is!

It's an analogy: humans replace machines in applying math, or code, for tabletop applications.

 

[Maxperson]

to the detriment of WotC’s bottom line.

I assume they still sell more books than files, but I have no idea by how much. I doubt you do either, but if you do, some source would be great

We know the following.

1. There are more people who aren't on D&D Beyond that are.
2. We know that D&D Beyond sees many, if not most groups use the DM's books, so most subscribers do not buy, or do not buy much.
3. We know that D&D Beyond has many dead accounts. Those accounts who use DMs books, made an account and then stopped going to the site, and those who are just there for the playtest and free content.
4. We know that many, if not most of those on D&D Beyond also buy hard copies of books.

While we don't know the exact difference in numbers, it's pretty clear that hard copies make them more money right now. I also doubt that they can force people around the world to join D&D Beyond by ceasing production of hard copies, nor do I think that they will try that. They might be able to squeeze more money out of those who subscribe though attractive offers, but whether those would eclipse what they make on hard copies isn't known.

 

[mamba]

We know the following.

1. There are more people who aren't on D&D Beyond that are.

from what I hear it's about 50% of players

2. We know that D&D Beyond sees many, if not most groups use the DM's books, so most subscribers do not buy, or do not buy much.

the same is true for physical books

3. We know that D&D Beyond has many dead accounts. Those accounts who use DMs books, made an account and then stopped going to the site, and those who are just there for the playtest and free content.

agreed, no idea what percentage that is

4. We know that many, if not most of those on D&D Beyond also buy hard copies of books.

agreed, many seem to buy twice

While we don't know the exact difference in numbers, it's pretty clear that hard copies make them more money right now.

agreed, which is why I put the number to around 2-3 times as many physical book. Just was wondering if you had any actual numbers

 

[Maxperson]

from what I hear it's about 50% of players


the same is true for physical books

Not in my experience. I've played with hundreds of players and maybe 1% had no books at all, and most have multiple player facing books in addition to the PHB like Xanathar's and Tasha's.

agreed, which is why I put the number to around 2-3 times as many physical book. Just was wondering if you had any actual numbers

I don't think anyone has hard numbers. I would estimate 4-5 times, though. Not anywhere close to the 10x in your other post, but I think higher than 2-3.

 

[Olrox17]

It's an analogy: humans replace machines in applying math, or code, for tabletop applications.

It's an analogy, yes, I just don't think it's a good analogy. Nobody cares if a computer has to do a little or a lot more work behind the scenes to ensure backwards compatibility. It doesn't matter, we don't even notice it.

We all care (or should care) if real humans at the table are saddled with some degree of extra work, just because the higher ups at a corp decided that "backwards compatibility" sounded like a good promotional term, and a professional game designing team couldn't figure out a way to solve the workload issue on their end.
(I'm not saying it's impossible for them to figure something out, I already presented 4e Essentials as an example of backwards compatibility done correctly. I just don't think they will. They'll do a 3.5 thing)

 

[FrogReaver]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

 

[Parmandur]

It's an analogy, yes, I just don't think it's a good analogy. Nobody cares if a computer has to do a little or a lot more work behind the scenes to ensure backwards compatibility. It doesn't matter, we don't even notice it.

We all care (or should care) if real humans at the table are saddled with some degree of extra work, just because the higher ups at a corp decided that "backwards compatibility" sounded like a good promotional term, and a professional game designing team couldn't figure out a way to solve the workload issue on their end.
(I'm not saying it's impossible for them to figure something out, I already presented 4e Essentials as an example of backwards compatibility done correctly. I just don't think they will. They'll do a 3.5 thing)

I mean, from what we've seen in the playtrst, there's basically zero work involved...?

 

[Parmandur]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

Actually, that should be pretty doable based on what we've seen, the last packet even says the final version will have guidance on doing that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Actually, that should be pretty doable based on what we've seen,

Not based on what I've seen.

the last packet even says the final version will have guidance on doing that.

IMO. Guidance on fitting a square peg in a round hole is still fitting a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Parmandur]

Not based on what I've seen.

IMO. Guidance on fitting a square peg in a round hole is still fitting a square peg in a round hole.

The peg is still round: the Bard Subclasses, at least, all work with the latest Bard drop, and that's going to be one of the most difficult ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

The peg is still round: the Bard Subclasses, at least, all work with the latest Bard drop, and that's going to be one of the most difficult ones.

One round peg doesn't equal all round pegs.

 

[Iosue]

I think they mean backward compatible in that you can play a 5e character at a 5.5e table without issues. What many mean by backward compatible is being able to mix a 5.5e character with a 5e subclass and vice versa. That's not going to work seamlessly with how they are changing subclasses.

Wizards has never made this claim. They've only defined backward compatibility as "fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D." Cross-pollination of characters, per se, never enters into it. Inasmuch as 5e adventures working with the 1D&D core rules, we can assume that character power will stay largely at the same level, and thus while 5e characters and 1D&D characters sharing a table shouldn't generally be a problem, as near as I can tell, Wizards expects groups to essentially use one of either set of rules for all characters.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wizards has never made this claim. They've only defined backward compatibility as "fifth edition adventures and supplements will work in One D&D." Cross-pollination of characters, per se, never enters into it. Inasmuch as 5e adventures working with the 1D&D core rules, we can assume that character power will stay largely at the same level, and thus 5e characters and 1D&D characters sharing a table shouldn't generally be a problem, as near as I can tell, Wizards expects groups to essentially use one of either set of rules for all characters.

Explicitly you mean. Because implicitly if the 5e adventure and supplements work as is in 5.5e then characters built in 5e should work alongside 5.5e ones as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Parmandur - to elaborate a bit

We've seen four classes now with subclass progression being standardized into 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 14th level from the otherwise scattered progression all over the place. We will assume all 12 PHB classes with keep a similar progression, though its worth noting they may not look exactly the same, if cleric domain is anything to go by. The purpose is to look at the rammifications of this change on the current subclasses in supplemental books.

... (removed for brevity)

Cleric
Current Progression: 1, 2, 6, 8, 17
Well the current UA shows us there is changes coming to clerics. We are already aware the change of domain has been moved to 3rd, and that the bonus proficiencies of domains have been moved to Divine Order. It also looks like the first level domain spells are gone. This will mean most domains will lose the bonus weapons/armor, proficiencies, or cantrips along with one line of spells. Channel divinity at 2nd is moved to 6th, divine strike is a base-class feature at 7th, the current 6th level feature is moved to 10th and the 17th level feature is dropped for 14. That should make most subs still work with cleric with minimal fuss, which is good because waiting on redesigns for nearly a dozen cleric domains seems like eternity.

Fighter
Current Progression: 3, 7, 10, 15, 18
Hoo-boy. This one is going to need some work. We have one more feature than is available in 1D&D. That means at the very least the last two features would come at 14th level as a double-up. I hesitate to speculate until we see the 1D&D fighter, but I imagine there is going to be a lot of work needed to make old fighter's work.

... (removed for brevity)

Cleric and Fighter will be the hardest to move over as they have more subclass features than One D&D subclasses have. Much harder to eliminate a feature than add one. That's the best example of square peg, round hole I have at the moment. More might become apparent when the details of other 5.5e classes become playtested.