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

[Maxperson]

The app did eventually work "as is". The problem was getting it into the new operating system.

"Eventually worked after going through a lot of effort" =/= backwards compatible.

 

[Remathilis]

No. I'm using the definition as provided by where it came from. Programming. Backwards compatible means that you can use the prior stuff without making an effort to make it work. If I have to modify things to make the two editions compatible(one side isn't being unfairly gimped), then it's not backwards compatible. At best it's partially compatible.

How about: 1D&D will allow for emulation of previous 5e characters and material with slight adjustments made for compatibility?

 

[Parmandur]

By that metric, I'm not even sure that any complaints about 5e are valid. Is that why you seem to be in favor of everything WotC does?

Sure there are valid complaints, for instance I am personally very upset that the Hadozee Race lore made it into print. Notice that they apologized for that nearly immediately, unlike the way they are keeping the same mathematical structure in place after ten years and for the foreseeable future. That shows you where the real swell of customer complaints and dissatisfaction is to be found.

Even the Ranger is overwhelmingly popular and people are satisfied with it (albeit less overwhlmingly than other Classes), according to WotC own numbers. That's one of the main reasons they were so reluctant to do any big changes: ticking off all the satisfied Ranger players was not something that they wanted to do.

 

[Maxperson]

How about: 1D&D will allow for emulation of previous 5e characters and material with slight adjustments made for compatibility?

That would be partially compatible, which is fine if it's truly slight. The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments. It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible. The background feats alone end that idea.

 

[Parmandur]

Then why are they removing DM-side crits, which explicitly makes combat less swingy?

Helps the House, and increases DM control over the situation. Probably makes CR a little easier to calculate.

 

[Parmandur]

That would be partially compatible, which is fine if it's truly slight. The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments. It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible. The background feats alone end that idea.

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

By that metric, I'm not even sure that any complaints about 5e are valid. Is that why you seem to be in favor of everything WotC does?

No. This is just him belonging to the 98% people who are more happy than grumpy.
He is also one of the 2% that are here because they like the game and like talking online. Now if you look at the balance between those 2% and the unhappy 2% it looks like a 50 - 50 split.

Or maybe the happy side is even more underrepresented online, because they are actually playing the game instead of always complaing. A few peopsle here seem to not play and just complain about the game. So WotC does the right thing ad does not take every complain serious, because in the whole scheme, they are irrelevant.

Currently there are many examples of TV shows, movies and games who were review bombed because a few grumpy people don't like diversity or evolution or mobile games. Those things still thrive, because people have learnt, that overly negative critic is just a concerted effort of jerks most of the time.

So back to the topic. I guess he just likes what he sees. No fanboy attitude, but just positive. It is no crime to like something new, because you think it is better and to say it in an online forum. It is just not trendy...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The background feats alone end that idea.

No... but it seems to be the hill you wanna die on.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. This is just him belonging to the 98% people who are more happy than grumpy.
He is also one of the 2% that are here because they like the game and like talking online. Now if you look at the balance between those 2% and the unhappy 2% it looks like a 50 - 50 split.

Or maybe the happy side is even more underrepresented online, because they are actually playing the game instead of always complaing. A few peopsle here seem to not play and just complain about the game. So WotC does the right thing ad does not take every complain serious, because in the whole scheme, they are irrelevant.

Currently there are many examples of TV shows, movies and games who were review bombed because a few grumpy people don't like diversity or evolution or mobile games. Those things still thrive, because people have learnt, that overly negative critic is just a concerted effort of jerks most of the time.

So back to the topic. I guess he just likes what he sees. No fanboy attitude, but just positive. It is no crime to like something new, because you think it is better and to say it in an online forum. It is just not trendy...

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

 

[Yaarel]

The first UA doesn't fill me with hope that it will end up just needing slight adjustments. It's still early, though, so I'm keeping an open mind about that part of it, but it's already pretty clear that it won't truly be backwards compatible.

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?