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

[Parmandur]

So you say, but let's be honest: every edition has made major changes in the game, and times and what's cool or popular changes with time. We are so far from the Sword and Sorcery low budget days of the early game it's not even funny.

The only constant in life is change, and that's even more so if you make a product that people might not like or might not stay the hotness, especially when the expectation is a billion dollars. We'll see.

The Evwrgreen strategy is over ten years old at this point, and has been well proven: don't expect any radical changes.

 

[SteveC]

Citation needed. Because no designer ever set this out as their design goals. This sounds more like you weren't getting the things you wanted, like a Warlord class or psionics.

And it sounds like you are one of the people who really dig 5E, and that's no harm, no foul to me. As we're moving well outside the bounds of discussion, I'll simply apologize and wish you good gaming.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

So you say, but let's be honest: every edition has made major changes in the game, and times and what's cool or popular changes with time. We are so far from the Sword and Sorcery low budget days of the early game it's not even funny.

Eldritch Wizardry, which added artifacts to the game, came out in 1976. So, at best, the sword & sorcery era of D&D lasted about a year.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Oh, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth at the time. I haven't heard any for months, though.

Maybe because the people who disliked the post-Tasha's 5E books have already bailed. (Dungeon Fantasy is my new RPG drug of choice.)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Maybe because the people who disliked the post-Tasha's 5E books have already bailed. (Dungeon Fantasy is my new RPG drug of choice.)

History suggests that the people who hate a thing in gaming, whether tabletop or videogame, will stick around for a very long time to tell you all about how mad they are.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, there was a lot of gnashing of teeth at the time. I haven't heard any for months, though.

The main complaints I heard were about the status of Volo's and Tome of Foes...but the Monster updates were pretty well received, it seems to me, and the new PC options and art were a big plus.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That may be the case, but the game has an almost 50 year history, and part of that history is saying "it will be compatible!" each and every time. And, in the case of Essentials, it was. So it's not without precedent. But that's not what usually happens.

And who knows if the people who are saying it are actually in the position to make that call? I don't know Crawford, but I have friends who do, and he is pretty well thought of. He's a solid gamer. But WotC isn't being run by gamers at the moment. The recent kerfuffle proves that and no one who was making those calls has been fired.

So when we come to the bottom of it all: we have WotC saying it will be compatible and if you believe them, then I guess there's no point in this thread. I don't believe that. I'm going based on what has been said in the past and what has happened before, and I could be quite wrong. I think, however, that just saying "this time will be different," is just as reaching as what I'm saying, since people have said the same exact thing before as far as what would happen that time. I don't know if even the people who are talking now about what will happen actually do know what will really happen.

Except no other time has been a similar circumstance to this.

They never claimed 4e would be compatible with anything previous (nor 3e with 2e IIRC), and when they updated it they kept it compatible with the pre-update books as promised. Then 5e, no promise of compatibility, and now we have an update meant to clean the game up and make it runs smoother and faster, and handle some stuff the community has asked for, and no concrete reason to think it won’t be compatible.

Hell, 3.5 is the only case of Wizards of The Coast claiming compatibility and that being false/questionable in the end.

Trying to use TSR’s track record to predict wotc’s future behavior is…beyond questionable reasoning, so we can disregard that.

So i really don’t think it’s a stretch to say that OneDnD will be 5e.

Honestly I don't think there's much more to say about it because we are at things we believe will happen and none of us really know anything.

If we didn’t continue discussions just because no one is going to change their mind this place would be rather boring.

 

[dave2008]

That's because those are both 5e, or at least billed as 5e.

I doubt that One will actually be billed as 5e.

Well that is not what Kyle implied today. He called OneD&D 5e.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The core books are being replaced. The supplements aren’t. VGR and MTF are the only supplements (not core books) that have been obviated, because they were kinda poorly received and were aging very poorly.

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.

The core books being replaced is an assumption of the entire enterprise. OneDnD is an update to the core books. That inherently involves replacing them.

I can also see them putting out a monster book that's half MPMM, half new creatures (or part MPMM, part monsters from current adventure books, part new monsters), thus causing a demand for another monster book with the rest of MPMM monsters along with new ones.

They could do, sure. They reprint a lot of stuff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

no idea, I did not see any complaints when MPMM came out about how those monsters are not compatible with 5e, or Tasha subclasses, so I guess I have more faith in humanity than that, but it would not be the first time humanity proves me wrong

You didn't see any complaints about that? I know I complained about it.