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

[Maxperson]

not sure about that, because that has been consistently wrong.

1e to 2e lost 50% of sales, no idea about 3e (clearly it gained players, just not sure about numbers) but that was a very different scenario, 3e to 4e did not work out either and 5e has basically been a fresh start more than anything because of that.
If this shows us anything, then that the player base does not switch to the next edition.

So I definitely understand why WotC does not want 1DD to be seen as a new edition and to maintain compatibility with 5e

D&D is the anti-Star Trek. The odd editions 1e, 3e and 5e have been good and done well, while the even ones not so much. 2e mostly due to mismanagement. It wasn't a bad edition.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yea, I mean I'm aware of the D&D Beyond data, but it's just so far outside my experience that it doesn't feel right. It's like some weird "silent majority" thing.

There's also a big difference between what that survey data measures (characters who have feats) and the question under discussion (how many tables allow feats). We don't actually have good data on how many tables allow feats but we do know that conventional wisdom encourages players to max out their stats before taking any feats, and most games end around the start of Tier 3 which is the first ASI most PCs would have after maxing out their stats anyway.

So it's not surprising if feats are relatively rare even at tables where they are allowed.

 

[mamba]

Not quite. TSR and WotC certainly expected people to move on. Whether people did or not, of course, is an entirely different thing.

I agree, I also believe they have learned this lesson by now, and this is why they have the focus on compatibility now.
My ‘not sure’ was about them still believing this, not about them having believed it in the past.

I think the easiest way to tell would be to see how many people who already owned VGM and MTF also bought MPMM, even though they already had those races and monsters. MPMM is currently #7 in D&D books on Amazon, and I have to imagine that a not-insignificant percentage of people who bought the book from Amazon also owned the earlier books. And that's just within a single edition! We've already seen in the playtests that the species are fairly different. People are going to want to see what's done with the monsters as well.

which is all the more reason to treat it as one continuous edition.

I certainly think the changes in MPMM were an improvement, so if they continue down that line, I am all for it

 

[mamba]

But they did that already, by creating MPMM when they already had VGR and MTF. Which shows they are more than willing to create a new line of core books. And they're going to be putting out a new PHB and almost certainly a new DMG and MM as well, which will also invalidate the earlier books.

that is a given, otherwise they would not be working on 1DD. The question simply is: is the new line of core books compatible with the old line

 

[mamba]

The problem with this is that part of that existing trajectory of prior changes included the assumption that the OGL 1.0a would be unauthorized prior to the release of 5.5e. The current change is more than enough to put that trajectory in doubt.

I do not see this as having any kind of impact.

For one it happened way too late in the cycle, if they want to release an incompatible version because of this (and this still is an if to me), that will be the one after 1DD.
For another releasing the SRD under CC gives them more incentive to stay compatible, to not leave an opening for a new PF again

 

[Faolyn]

that is a given, otherwise they would not be working on 1DD. The question simply is: is the new line of core books compatible with the old line

I think that whether it is or not, most people aren't going to care. One will be just different enough that people will will treat it as a separate edition and buy all new books to replace the older ones.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It seems people have a lot of faith in "WotC says it will be backwards compatible." I have to shake my head at that. 6E is over a year away, and WotC has a whole slate of products coming out during that time. "We have a new edition coming out, so these books have a short lifespan to them..." is not exactly something that will make books fly off the shelves.

Again, compatibility is something that TSR/Wizards has discussed since 1E became 2E, and with the exception of Essentials, it has never worked out.

I'm not saying it won't be an Essentials situation here, but that would be the exception and not the rule. And once again, an effectively backwards compatible game opens us up to a situation where products like Mayfair Games Role Aids or Judges Guilds Universal Fantasy products are quite possible, which TSR sued over in the past.

Just wanted to point out that in the Kyle Brinks interview today he again stated them at OneD&D will be compatible. We don’t have to take them at their word, but they keep insisting it is the plan

 

[Clint_L]

"WotC thinks OneD&D is 5e and vice versa." - D&D producer Kyle Brinks, today.

That was their position when they launched OneD&D last summer, and it remains their position today. The test material has been tweaks, not major changes. And they have doubled down on a digital delivery system that demands backwards compatibility.

I feel like if, at this point, you refuse to accept at least the possibility of backwards compatibility, you are just being stubborn.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The problem with this is that part of that existing trajectory of prior changes included the assumption that the OGL 1.0a would be unauthorized prior to the release of 5.5e. The current change is more than enough to put that trajectory in doubt.

Kyle just said I the interview posted today that the CC SRD will be updated to be 100% compatible with ‘24 D&D. He also reiterated that they consider it all 5e, thus the name “OneD&D”

 

[Maxperson]

Kyle just said I the interview posted today that the CC SRD will be updated to be 100% compatible with ‘24 D&D. He also reiterated that they consider it all 5e, thus the name “OneD&D”

I believe that he said that. They've just been wrong about what they say is coming(including compatibility) in new editions a lot more than they've been correct.