D&D (2024) What does Backward compatibility mean to you?

[Marandahir]

To me:

Backwards compatibility is not full compatability.

It does not mean mix and match.

It means I can play a Game Boy cartridge on a GBC or GBA; I can play a GBA cart on my Nintendo DS (2004 model); I can play my DS cart on my Nintendo 3DS (any model); I can boot up a Wii disk on a Wii U and still play it.

It does not mean my 3DS will recognise the DS Wi-Fi Connection and let me play Pokémon Black and White on 3DS servers. It does not mean that I have perpetual access to the browser-based Pokémon Dream World, despite that being a selling point of the DSi Pokémon titles.

Likewise, One D&D should be able to “boot up” a 5e module, even perhaps run with PCs from the 2014 PHB. But I wouldn’t expect it to cleanly allow mixing and matching of player options, nor would I expect it to easily balance 2014-2019 PCs with 2020-2023 PCs with 2024-onward PCs.

I would expect every 2014 PHB character archetype, if not in the 2024 PHB, would have a very close equivalent option and an errata/update guide to show how to rekit the your character.

And I’m still not sure if I should expect Tasha’s onwards (incl errata for Xanathar’s in the Rules Expansion) to be fully compatible. I expect them to be a heck of a lot compatible, at least, than the 2014 and 2017 versions.

 

[Marandahir]

So what does 1D&D mean?

In D&D Beyond, they can seamlessly mesh the 2024 PHB material with the Tasha's and XGtE material incorporating their inevitable 2024 errata. They will probably have some automatically way to "update" older characters.

This is how it will work. Is it "backwards compatible"?

That is, assuming that you play with sticky note errata on your physical books, or play with D&D Beyond.

I would not expect errata documents for the 2014 books to be inclusive of the 2024 rules. I would expect upon August 2024, the 2014 rules will become Legacy Content in Dndbeyond and will be retired from errata, while Tasha’s and Xanathar’s and Mordenkainen Presents, at least, will get errata.

I would also expect that campaign settings will continue to get errata, as it doesn’t make sense to try to replace Ravnica or Eberron or Critical Role books wholescale, so much as include the errata in any reprintings. They don’t want to reinvent the wheel where you have to buy whole new books of 90% the same content.

The Core Rules are special because everything builds on them, and we can probably see this new DMG as a sort of DMG II akin to in past editions - they want to rewrite it to provide a lot better guidance to new DMs. So the core rules may double down on a lot of legacy content, but I wouldn’t expect to see Loxodons or Vedalken again until we visit another M:tG world that features them. At which point they will be published with the new stats, and Ravnica will likely be errata’d at that time, and that time only.

 

[MockingBird]

I think I'm wanting full compatibility but realizing I'm probably only gonna get backwards compatibility. I think I'm going to be okay still don't know haha

 

[Marandahir]

I think I'm wanting full compatibility but realizing I'm probably only gonna get backwards compatibility. I think I'm going to be okay still don't know haha

Hang in there. There’s lot of great content on DM’s Guild and that’s not going away after the shift. If you have to ignore 2024 onward, you’ve probably got a lifetime’s worth of quality game materials published in the last 10 years.

But if you’re willing to keep moving forward with the changes, be prepared for a lot of errata stickies

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

"Backward compatibility" is when you don't have faith in your changes to actually stand on their own merits as important, necessary, and worthy, and you want to convince existing players that your changes won't actually be significant, and therefore they won't be upset by them.

NO edition has an expiration date...

 

[Marandahir]

"Backward compatibility" is when you don't have faith in your changes to actually stand on their own merits as important, necessary, and worthy, and you want to convince existing players that your changes won't actually be significant, and therefore they won't be upset by them.

NO edition has an expiration date...

Or they just want people to be able to play the vast and deep offerings from the DM’s Guild, Adventurer’s League, and WotC published adventures when you build a character and party using 2024 rules?

Like, do you REALLY want them to redo Elemental Evil, Rage of Demons, Theros, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, etc all over again and have to wait until 2030 before we get to Dark Sun and Mystara and Birthright and Council of Wyrms, etc?

This lets them not have to reinvent the wheel with core types of adventures. You want a jungle horror adventure with undead and dinos? Play Tomb of Annihilation. You want an urban romp? Dragon Heist. You want a classic dungeon crawl? Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Dragons? Tyranny of Dragons. Demons or Underdark rules? Out of the Abyss.

They don’t need to revisit those outside of some errata. They can give us brand new adventures going forward and keep the old materials as accessible!

 

[glass]

That's right. Being "out of date" (whatever that means) is not the same thing as an error, which is what "errata" should be used for. If you're going to change the rules, call it what it is.

I don't like it because it implies that everything pre-errata was an error, and now they've "improved" the old rule by correcting that error. I strongly disagree with the idea that everything newer is better, and this nomenclature supports that bogus (to me) philosophy.

If what they printed originally is incompatible with what they want to do now, then it is not unreasonable for them to consider that a mistake (closing off design space or whatever), even if it could not reasonably have been known to be one at the time. Regardless of whether your or I agree with them.

Not best practice, and it hit them in the butt longterm.

The reason that 4e's errata seemed so large is that they reprinted in full any power, feat, or other elements that was receiving errata. Which I would say is very good practice. You were right about its "hit[ting] them in the butt", in that it created a false impression (and of course gave edition warriors yet another thing to seize on and bash 4e with - not that they needed an excuse).

 

[Micah Sweet]

If what they printed originally is incompatible with what they want to do now, then it is not unreasonable for them to consider that a mistake (closing off design space or whatever), even if it could not reasonably have been known to be one at the time. Regardless of whether your or I agree with them.


The reason that 4e's errata seemed so large is that they reprinted in full any power, feat, or other elements that was receiving errata. WHich I would say is very good practice. You were right about its "hit[ting] them in the butt", in that it created a false impression (and of course gave edition warriors yet another thing to seize on and bash 4e with - not that they needed an excuse).

Just call it an update. That way you're not implying that your previous design work (which is likely favored by some segment of your fanbase) was a mistake. To make changes and just assume everything's an improvement is basically what George Lucas did when he re-issued the Star Wars films.

 

[glass]

Just call it an update. That way you're not implying that your previous design work (which is likely favored by some segment of your fanbase) was a mistake.

Of course it does. Whatever you call it, the fact that you are changing it implies that.

To make changes and just assume everything's an improvement is basically what George Lucas did when he re-issued the Star Wars films.

Presumably Lucas thought all the changes he made were improvements, otherwise why would he have made them? And let's be fair, the vast majority of them were - there are only a handful that most of use disagree with (even if we disagree quite strongly).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course it does. Whatever you call it, the fact that you are changing it implies that.


Presumably Lucas thought all the changes he made were improvements, otherwise why would he have made them? And let's be fair, the vast majority of them were - there are only a handful that most of use disagree with (even if we disagree quite strongly).

You can make changes without implying that the previous version was an error. Small changes, mostly. For bigger ones, you're better off replacing the whole thing.