D&D (2024) The impending mess that will be backwards compatibility

[Minigiant]

All i know is we are going to be inundated with horror stories if this shtick isn't dropped.

"I let my player use 2014 races but 2024 background with the Tashas feats and subclasses and he keeps one shotting the BBEGs! Unbalanced game!"

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I can do that, but I still don't get why WotC's current intent would be to create a new PH, with a significantly changed and completely rewritten ruleset, and deliberately not distinguish it from the previous version, with which it is supposed to be backwards compatible but most certainly not the same book.

Some here have compared it to a supplement rather than a new edition. Don't supplemental products usually go by different names from the core book of the game for which they are a supplement?

It is clearly not a completely rewritten rule set

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't know. I rather liked Essentials, and thought it worked beautifully. If they had released it earlier in the cycle I might have kept playing 4e.

... right at the beginning would have been the best time IMHO.

But going by that, it seems as if "do the opposite of what Micah likes" might be a good business decision...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Minus all the new stuff they are doing.

nope

 

[mamba]

The issue is that growth is never infinite. Chewing through new players with crud while doing little to retain (or worse, deliberately doing the opposite) a player base means eventually nothing you make is going to sell anymore.

if you think you can hold most players indefinitely you are mistaken too though

What is crud and what is not is very much personal opinion. So far they certainly are gaining players, so most seem to not consider it crud and their approach is working

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I see the new books as "thinking outside but pressed right up against the box", in terms of change. Enough to notice and be annoyed by if you don't like it, not enough to really address 5e's potential problems.

that is a great way to say it... afraid of outside the box but trying to lay claim to it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But both were referred to as their appropriate editions PH at the time, and 3.5 was in its time clearly differentiated from 3.0.

and they DID call them 3 and 4e just not on the front cover (just like people try to claim the current oens don't say 5e when they do)

 

[Blue]

And this isn't even the definition of backward compatibility. So this is redefining the term so that they can hit it.

 

[mamba]

This book was clearly identified as the 4e PH by WotC at the time, and more importantly was not supposed to be thought of as the same book as any previous PH.

Sure it was, but it does not say so. So saying the 1DD PHB somehow has to include a version number when this did not and you had no complaints then is inconsistent.

The new 1DD PHB clearly is not mean to be thought of as the same book, no idea what makes you say so. Compatible does not mean ‘the same book’

 

[mamba]

I can do that, but I still don't get why WotC's current intent would be to create a new PH, with a significantly changed and completely rewritten ruleset, and deliberately not distinguish it from the previous version, with which it is supposed to be backwards compatible but most certainly not the same book.

the ‘deliberately not distinguishing’ is at best in your head only

The will not look the same, you will not accidentally buy one when you wanted the other (for however long both are on sale in parallel)