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

[delericho]

So far, we've seen that theybare willing to provide sidebars at the relevant juncture thst explain how to make the rulesnwork, like using a SCAG Race.option with a new Background. Adventures are easier, because the old Monster stat blocks work fine, we've been mixing them in practice for years now. The bolded monster entries can be easily keyed to a nee Mosnter Manual, but a few old style Mosnters will work fine in practice.

3.5e was going to be backwards compatible, until it wasn't. So I'll reserve judgement on what we're getting in 2024 until we actually get it.

The one thing I'll note is that I'm not particularly bothered whether we end up with a 5.01e, 5.5e, or 6e. I've skipped most of the recent WotC books anyway, so if we lose backwards compatibility then for me that won't be a great loss. That will vary for others, of course. And I also like the core experience of 5e, so if they stick close to that, that's good too.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, that's fair. My pushback would be that modifying the adventure based on overall party power is a choice, not a necessity. The adventure will run fine without modifications, it's simply not optimal. (Just as any current adventure is often not optimal based on other party composition factors.)

If my app runs 20% slower on Windows 11 than it does on Windows 10, that doesn't mean that it isn't backwards compatible.

Speed is an issue with backwards compatibility. If you were upgrading a videogame system that promised backwards compatibility with your current systems games, and a game ran 20% slower, it would be virtually unplayable, especially in a game like Halo.

 

[Maxperson]

By the way @Parmandur, I looked at the wiki you got your backwards compatibility definition from and found this in the programs section.

"A data format is said to be backward compatible with its predecessor if every message or file that is valid under the old format is still valid, retaining its meaning, under the new format."

Every old file(rule) is valid, retaining its meaning. If I have to change portions of 5e because of 5.5 rules, it fails the backwards compatibility test, and that's from the place you provided.

 

[MockingBird]

Not while retaining backwards compatibility. The 2014 gives ME the option to engage it or not. If the new rules are backwards compatible, that option will remain to me. If they remove it, the option that I have engaged in since I started 5e is gone and I have to modify my game in order to use feats. Either I modify it and put that rule back in place, or I modify it to the new feat system.

This right here. I only recently picked up Tashas so keep that in mind. Once I saw feats were in fact not optional I knew immediately that this update wasn't going to be as compatible as I was hoping it to be. Like @Maxperson says, if the option doesn't remain then they took it away and it doesn't jive with the 2014 book. We shall see how the playtest goes but I dunno man.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, sure. But they use the same system of errata to make rules "corrections" when it's changes that bring certain elements in line with other elements of the game, even if there was nothing technically "wrong" with the old version. What becomes "wrong" is that it is out-of-date or no-longer-jives.

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's true of announcements.

But there's a weird phenomenon that I have experienced as a Game Store owner what is it... FOUR times now?:

Every time a new edition comes out, the old one suddenly moves again. Not in nearly the numbers it did when IT was the new edition, but in numbers far greater than its own recent sales. It happened when 2e switched to 3e (all the sudden our 2e stock moved after languishing for a few years). It happened when 3.0 switched to 3.5, and when 3.5 switched to 4e (the 3.5 PHB even suddenly went for big money on the aftermarket!) AND YES, even 4e had a big resurgence when 5e came out. I quickly blew through all my store copies, AND all my player's copies (my group of 8 players all had their own books, and they all "gave" them back to me to sell).

It's a weird thing, that until now I've tended to forget would happen, because I don't personally understand it. But then, I've always adopted whatever the NEW HAWT version of the game is, for better or worse. (It makes sense, of course, to play and promote the edition that currently has books in print!)

If you have a financial stake, sure. But otherwise, it only makes sense if its your group's preference to switch.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

Yeah, but that's not really how language works. It morphs. Errata may start with a root meaning "error" (and fixing them) but then it goes on to mean "corrections" which itself goes on to mean "any changes to a print job, for any reason".

It's not technically correct to call "updates" errata, you are absolutely right, but it IS how the word is used, and not just for WotC or D&D. You might not like it (I feel ya!) but it's how it is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You and I might say that.. but I wouldn't doubt in the least there isn't someone out there who is looking for any reason to get on a high-horse to decry Wizards of the Coast.

I have plenty of other reasons to decry Wizards of the Coast, if I'm so inclined.

For myself, it does feel like a new edition to me, and I will treat it as such. Even so, none of the changes proposed or speculated on as of yet are worth re-buying any material to me. We'll have to see if they actually change anything in a worthwhile fashion going forward.

 

[Micah Sweet]

As a total aside, I don't think the problem with the 3.5 change was the core books, really. The problem was them immediately publishing Complete Warrior and revising 90% of the material from Sword and Fist, thus immediately telegraphing that the company viewed existing 3.0 splat as problematic.

If Complete Warrior had been 100% new PrCs, thus indicating Sword and Fist was still fine to use, I think people would have been a lot less sour over the change.

That's a good point. What you really want to see is the first supplement after the 6e corebooks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, but that's not really how language works. It morphs. Errata may start with a root meaning "error" (and fixing them) but then it goes on to mean "corrections" which itself goes on to mean "any changes to a print job, for any reason".

It's not technically correct to call "updates" errata, you are absolutely right, but it IS how the word is used, and not just for WotC or D&D. You might not like it (I feel ya!) but it's how 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.