What does Backward compatibility mean to you?

[Micah Sweet]

5e will have been around for 10 years. That is a long time for a D&D edition. How can there not be some evolution in the game by then?

Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives. Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It seems like WotC doesn't take any complaint seriously unless its about a social issue.

You should probably look up "selection bias". And then ask wotc to have a look into their surveys.

And then ask yourself what they are doing all day asking themselves:

A "How can we screw up 98% of our players, because we secretly hate them?"

OR

B "How can we make 98% of oir playerbase happy, so we can sell more books and still have the job we love 10 years from now?"

 

[Yaarel]

Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives. Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.

My impression is: They feel the ".5" of 3.5 was a mistake, when it forced players to buy new books. For 5e, they want players to still be able to use their old books. At the same time, that doesnt preclude OneD&D from introducing brand new options.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Usually, they openly make a new edition and that's where the evolution lives. Here, as in 3.5e, they're insisting the game hasn't really changed in an attempt to avoid annoying their customer base.

Most of the people from 3.5 don't work at wotc anymore.
Your mileage might vary, but what I see is still backwards compatible enough and is an evolution in most regards. I am also missing too many parts to make a whole picture of it, so my assessment might change.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You should probably look up "selection bias". And then ask wotc to have a look into their surveys.

And then ask yourself what they are doing all day asking themselves:

A "How can we screw up 98% of our players, because we secretly hate them?"

OR

B "How can we make 98% of oir playerbase happy, so we can sell more books and still have the job we love 10 years from now?"

Again, by that metric, they shouldn't change anything, because everybody they care about seems pretty happy with the 5e we have. They certainly aren't putting out new core books in response to millions of dissatisfied customers.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My impression is: They feel the ".5" of 3.5 was a mistake, when it forced players to buy new books. For 5e, they want players to still be able to use their old books. At the same time, that doesnt preclude OneD&D from introducing brand new options.

Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books. What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, by that metric, they shouldn't change anything, because everybody they care about seems pretty happy with the 5e we have. They certainly aren't putting out new core books in response to millions of dissatisfied customers.

No. But at some point you need to evolve or everyone else around you evolves and you stay behind.
Also they already tested the waters with background feats and the response probably was overwhelmingly positive...

and they killed the standard human and made feats core. I guess this is what their data says how the game is mainly played.
Also the inspiration change seems to be a reaction to how the game is actually played... I can confirm that for my games. Inspiration as in core 5e does not work.

 

[Maxperson]

5E characters already have Level 1 Feats in 4 published products (Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven, and Spelljammer), plus apparently every other 5E publication in the pipeline. Doesn't mean Theros isn't backwards compatible with the 5E Core from 2014.

No they don't. They have them for those specific settings. A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds. Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds. At least by default. The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings. And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.

 

[Yaarel]

Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books. What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.

Remind me where they obsolete the 2014 core books? I dont recall that.

 

[Parmandur]

It seems like WotC doesn't take any complaint seriously unless its about a social issue.

From what I can tell, WotC is a very simple organization. They take complaints seriously when it can impact their bottom line. Simple as that. If complaints about the game system Rose to the level of threatening their bottom line, they would respond (see also, the end of 4E).

 

[Parmandur]

No they don't. They have them for those specific settings. A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds. Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds. At least by default. The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings. And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.

I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No they don't. They have them for those specific settings. A 5e character set in the Forgotten Realms isn't going to have access to the Theros, Ravenloft, Strixhaven or Spelljammer backgrounds. Someone playing Strixhaven won't have access to the Theros backgrounds. At least by default. The DM can of course allow anything, but those backgrounds are intended for those settings. And were created that way with 5.5 in mind.

Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.

But the designers have given us 5e and it should never change, because in all their wisdom they did everything correctly in 2014...
Sorry, I don't buy that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Their explanation of backwards compatibility explicitly included "adventures and supplements", not 2014 core books. What they want is to get people to spend another $150, but feel good about it because their other books will still more or less work.

That sounds like a good business plan.

 

[Maxperson]

I assure you that the game won't explode if they mix.

No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.

 

[Parmandur]

No it won't, but there will be significant disparity between the old backgrounds and the new.

That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.

 

[Maxperson]

Still, the reacrion seemed so positive that tgey decided to go forward with it. This is how evolution works.

Yes. I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward. That's not what I am arguing, though. I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.

 

[Maxperson]

That can be fixed by saying "eh, take a first Level Feat." Or, frankly, not, the game would still work. Unlike trying to just run a 4E or 3E PC in 5E.

Yes. This is an easy fix. It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility. If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes. This is an easy fix. It's still a fix, though, which ruins backwards compatibility. If I the DM have to make a change to the game, even a minor one, in order for the two editions to mesh, there is no backwards compatibility.

To be honest, this seems more like semantics at a certain point. What we've seen already is that they are willing to put in sidebars providing the process to use 2014 options in OneD&D, and as long as they are as simple as that with a laid out process in the final book...that's backwards compatible in any meaningful sense of the term from where I sit.

Using any TTRPG book requires some legwork and adaptation.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yes. I agree and was one of those who are very happy with the step forward. That's not what I am arguing, though. I dislike when something is billed as one thing, but is really not going to be that thing.

Backwards compatibility is a pipe dream and I would have preferred them to have just told us that we could use the old rules with a bit of work, rather than bill it as something it can't be.

I still think your definition is way off the mark. At least you like it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Remind me where they obsolete the 2014 core books? I dont recall that.

As i said,, they were specific about what kind of books are backwards compatible with 2024, and it is not the 2014 core. The new books are a replacement.