D&D (2024) So Will 'OneD&D' (6E) Actually Be Backwards Compatible?

[Umbran]

If discussions of 6e were separate (as they tend to be with every previous edition) i would basically get what I want. My issue is WotC's insistance that this is still 5e.

Yeah, well, on this site I would not expect us to separate the discussions if the functional differences between them end up to be small. Maybe having different tags in the D&D forum when someone wanted to be specific.

 

[Scribe]

...is a hypothetical edge case that probably doesn't mean a lot in practice.

I am sure one can cherrypick examples that have weird end results. If your position is based on those items, rather than workaday play, maybe we need to note that.

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.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Backwards compatibility was always a moving target, and everyone uses a different private understanding of how the term might be implemented.

Here's where I laid out my expectations back in November as to what the term would likely mean. I laid out four bullet points there, and even after the adventures of January, I think these hold:

1. adventures from 5e can still be run with 1D&D characters.
2. 5e characters will be able to be played in new 1D&D adventures.
3. It will be possible for players to have 5e characters alongside 1D&D characters in a party, and for most players, it will run smoothly.
4. Rule expansions for 5e (esp. Tasha, Xanathar, MotM) will not be 100% compatible with the new PHB.

The first three of these fall under what many people would think of as backwards compatible. The fourth is certainly not backwards compatible.

What I didn't account for were two further things, which emerged from the events of January. Neither of these are "backwards compatible" in a normal understanding of the phrase:

5. 1D&D will be operating under a different license than 5e in terms of 3rd party developers
6. there will be "official" rules content available only to subscribers, not in the print PHB (assuming they even make a print PHB)

I would love to be wrong on all of points 4-6.

 

[Umbran]

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.

All "flaws", as a practical matter, are measured based on some level of tolerance of variation. The item isn't actually considered flawed unless it is outside the tolerance range.

If your tolerance of variation is small, then you can end up saying, "in order to be backwards compatible, the editions literally cannot change," and that can be a non-starter.

In contrast, I don't care if there's some difference in practice, so long as that difference is on the order of differences in effectiveness we see between classes within an edition.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, well, on this site I would not expect us to separate the discussions if the functional differences between them end up to be small. Maybe having different tags in the D&D forum when someone wanted to be specific.

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

 

[Yaarel]

They do say this in there most recent FAQ about the SRD. Though you can interpret it a few ways:

Will more content be added to the SRD? The full 5th edition game and its expansions are available for use via the DMs Guild. New material will be added to the SRD if it is necessary to keep this document and its contents compatible with the latest D&D rules.

Great find. This is definitive for what 2024e will look.

I understand it as follows.



The 5e SRD is now in the CC.

Hasbro-WotC WANTS all of their products to be compatible with the 5e SRD.

If the compatibility drifts away from the SRD, Hasbro-WotC will actually update the SRD in the CC to ensure compatibility.

So. The short answer is "yes", 2024e will remain compatible with 5e.



The long answer is, all new D&D options for 2024e will never be in the SRD. It will remain in a walled garden (VTT, DMsGuild, etcetera) under Hasbro-WotC control. It will be impossible to publish (or maybe even to discuss in detail) new product content outside of this walled garden. VTTs will be unable to include new content without a license.



As I predicted elsewhere, I suspect Hasbro-WotC will emphasize official options that are rich with setting flavor − and narrative details that are actually copyrightable.

This is a problem for D&D "world builders". But the 5e SRD will be a solid foundation to build new settings that are separate from Hasbro-WotC products.

 

[Mercurius]

Haven't read the thread, but I think it will be less compatible than they're saying it will be, but more compatible than all the people who freak out when it comes out about how all their old books are useless.

 

[dave2008]

Great find. This is definitive for what 2024e will look.

I understand it as follows.



The 5e SRD is now in the CC.

Hasbro-WotC WANTS all of their products to be compatible with the 5e SRD.

If the compatibility drifts away from the SRD, Hasbro-WotC will actually update the SRD in the CC to ensure compatibility.

So. The short answer is "yes", 2024e will remain compatible with 5e.



The long answer is, all new D&D options for 2024e will never be in the SRD. It will remain in a walled garden (VTT, DMsGuild, etcetera) under Hasbro-WotC control. It will be impossible to publish (or maybe even to discuss in detail) new product content outside of this walled garden. VTTs will be unable to include new content without a license.



As I predicted elsewhere, I suspect Hasbro-WotC will emphasize official options that are rich with setting flavor − and narrative details that are actually copyrightable.

This is a problem for D&D "world builders". But the 5e SRD will be a solid foundation to build new settings that are separate from Hasbro-WotC products.

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.

 

[Blue]

Feats aren't a system in Core 5E, they are a variant rule, a variant that most tables and characters aren't using. Abandoning an unused variant rule and making a new system is reasonable, and has no effect on compatibility.

I didn't and don't want to get into an anecdotal "used/not used". For the dozen+ groups I've played with since 5e came out, I've never seen it not used. But this will just go down to "he siad/she said" and no conclusions.

But regardless, it exists. For OneD&D feats are part of the core of what has been released so far. That is a fact. So if the game you are playing has feats, then the game you are playing has feats - not partially has feats and ignores feats elsewhere.

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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Nooooo, per WotC most tables don't use Feats, which was also backed up by Beyond data. Tons of tables do use them...but it's a minority. And optional. As an option, replacing the system wholesale doesn't impact compatibility...since it's already an inessential module.

Again I must point out that "don't use" isn't the same thing as "are against" or "don't want to use". The obvious reason that this is true is that Feats compete against ASIs in 5E, and last I heard (and I think the figures were pretty old I admit), the vast majority of characters/tables on Beyond were levels 1-7, so not even at the second ASI/Feat point.

But yes you are undoubtedly technically correct (the best kind of correct) for when the survey was taken.

Also I'd be very interested to see the 2023 figures on that after various campaigns have come out with starting Feats and so on.