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

[Clint_L]

Sure. And if they had just said that with a bit of work you can run 5e and 5.5e together, I wouldn't be talking about this. It was the false claim of backwards compatibility that I have an issue with.

Is it possible that you define backwards compatibility differently than most of us seem to be doing? That what you see as false claims are in fact just differences of opinion?

 

[Maxperson]

Is it possible that you define backwards compatibility differently than most of us seem to be doing? That what you see as false claims are in fact just differences of opinion?

Backwards compatibility is a software term and it means usable with no effort on the part of the user. If I have to put in any effort to use both together, and we already know that I will, it's not backwards compatible. It's just mostly compatible or a little incompatible. So are a lot of people trying to change the definition? It seems so, yes.

 

[Clint_L]

Backwards compatibility is a software term and it means usable with no effort on the part of the user. If I have to put in any effort to use both together, and we already know that I will, it's not backwards compatible. It's just mostly compatible or a little incompatible. So are a lot of people trying to change the definition? It seems so, yes.

So your stance is that you are right and everyone else is wrong, full stop? Is there a chance that they have a legitimate point of view?

Also, I anticipate being able to use One on DDB with no effort.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. And if they had just said that with a bit of work you can run 5e and 5.5e together, I wouldn't be talking about this. It was the false claim of backwards compatibility that I have an issue with.

I just dunno if I see it as a "false" claim, as much as a claim that's very mildly annoying.

Like, don't think I'm unsympathetic. I remember seeing claims of compatibility in games/books in the '90s and '00s that required serious work to make function together at all, and it used to really irk me when stuff was claimed as compatible but wasn't immediately usable. Eventually I'd seen enough that I could see compatibility was always a spectrum, even between very close games (like CoC editions), sometimes there was something annoying to address.

And I do think WotC's flat statements about it being "compatible" are a little bit cheap and lacking in nuance. Especially as they haven't even finished designing it! I get that the aim was to calm the horses and to encourage people to see where the game is compatible, but I feel like it could have been better handled and they could and should have used more qualifiers.

But at the same time, I think the actual amount of work required to make them work together is going to be fairly low, at least based on the current design of 1D&D (as far as we know it). Especially if you're willing to accept some amount of imperfect-ness, which I think one should be.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Backwards compatibility is a software term and it means usable with no effort on the part of the user. If I have to put in any effort to use both together, and we already know that I will, it's not backwards compatible. It's just mostly compatible or a little incompatible. So are a lot of people trying to change the definition? It seems so, yes.

I think this is a problem you're creating for yourself. You see it as a software term, but it's been used as an RPG term for decades. Since at least the 1980s. And it's clearly being used as an RPG term here, not as the software term. You say "people are trying to change the definition", but that's just not true. People are applying the RPG definition (which again, has been used since the 1980s), not the software one.

I do think it's annoying that WotC used the term "backwards compatible" though, rather than just saying compatible, because that confuses the issue. And they did - here for example: https://dndbeyond-support.wizards.com/hc/en-us/articles/8609273323156-One-D-D-FAQ#:~:text=The rules will be backwards,options and opportunities for adventure.

I'm not sure if either of the main designers has used backwards compatible though, and the internet is being unhelpful. That said, WotC's FAQ does define it.

 

[Olrox17]

“The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements”

I have no doubt they’ll reach their goal as far as adventures go, that’s easy. Supplements though? Xanathar, Tasha? I doubt that very much.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

“The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements”

I have no doubt they’ll reach their goal as far as adventures go, that’s easy. Supplements though? Xanathar, Tasha? I doubt that very much.

Yeah that's going to be a very rough kind of compatibility at most. Like, if you create a 5E character and use Tasha's and Xanathars options, and play them in a 1D&D game, you'll probably be fine, but trying to jam a subclass from either of those on to a 1D&D character is unlikely to work out well (esp. from certain classes - IIRC only Barbarians match the 1D&D subclass progression exactly, and some are really big mismatches - I saw a big table somewhere, maybe on the 1D&D reddit?).

 

[Maxperson]

So your stance is that you are right and everyone else is wrong, full stop? Is there a chance that they have a legitimate point of view?

Also, I anticipate being able to use One on DDB with no effort.

Most players do not use DDB.

 

[Maxperson]

I just dunno if I see it as a "false" claim, as much as a claim that's very mildly annoying.

Like, don't think I'm unsympathetic. I remember seeing claims of compatibility in games/books in the '90s and '00s that required serious work to make function together at all, and it used to really irk me when stuff was claimed as compatible but wasn't immediately usable. Eventually I'd seen enough that I could see compatibility was always a spectrum, even between very close games (like CoC editions), sometimes there was something annoying to address.

And I do think WotC's flat statements about it being "compatible" are a little bit cheap and lacking in nuance. Especially as they haven't even finished designing it! I get that the aim was to calm the horses and to encourage people to see where the game is compatible, but I feel like it could have been better handled and they could and should have used more qualifiers.

But at the same time, I think the actual amount of work required to make them work together is going to be fairly low, at least based on the current design of 1D&D (as far as we know it). Especially if you're willing to accept some amount of imperfect-ness, which I think one should be.

I can agree with all of that. Except for 1D&D. It's 5.5e

 

[Parmandur]

Backwards compatibility is a software term and it means usable with no effort on the part of the user. If I have to put in any effort to use both together, and we already know that I will, it's not backwards compatible. It's just mostly compatible or a little incompatible. So are a lot of people trying to change the definition? It seems so, yes.

Even granting the software analogy is correct, I thi k Beyond will make that easy. I've said it before, but I'll say it agaon: the DM isn't a "User" in a software analogy, the DM is the OS, which does do work in software compatability.