Because RPGs aren't operating systems, and just because something is accepted in one context doesn't mean it will be (or should be) accepted in another. It takes a couple of weeks for me to receive a book that I've ordered from another country, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept an electronic file that needs several weeks to download.
What ever you call it changling vlass for abilities (pact magic and bard inspire) makes the game less backwards compatible no matter what we call it
Hmmh... that example somehow does not convince me.
naming things by years is not limited to OSes by any stretch. If WotC wants to keep 5e as the edition, then using the year is a good way to distinguish 2014 from 2024 when needed
I don’t know if D&D24 will catch on or not but that would still be a break point signifier to me.
They have not been cagey. At all. They have been completely upfront. Literally: in the first announcement from last summer they spell out, up front in the video, that OneD&D is the name of the overall project, including a rules update with the integration of DnDBeyond and a VTT, and that the books themselves will simply be called D&D going forward, using the very successful 5e chassis.
D&D'24 is better than most names for D&D revisions, because it is descriptively accurate. The fact that so many people to this day give credence to "3.5" as making sense as a designation is alone enough to demonstrate ymthay, long term, people will call it what WotC chooses to call it.
It does.No, it doesn’t.
I mean it could, but it doesn’t in the cases we have seen.
I mean I asked you in another thread to show how, and it was easy to show how every example you have wasn’t any less compatible, so…no.
