I know it is somewhat silly to think they will actually respond to this, but I can hope that it will speed up any planned announcements. With 5.1 SRD going to Creative Commons, if One D&D is backwards compatible everyone can just continue making 5e content no matter what WotC decides to do about a new license for One, so it might make sense to WotC to make One D&D no longer backwards compatible so they could form a new license. This would be a monumentally stupid decision, especially since so much work on a backwards compatible D&D One has already been completed and I don't honestly think WotC would do this, but the past month has created a lot of fear in my considerations for the future. So can we get a video, blog or even just a tweet that commits WotC to a backwards compatible D&D One?

What Wizards meant by "backwards compatible" is that adventures and supplements will still be usable for the next edition, even though it might take a some modifications. A lot of people misunderstand what they were trying to say, but yes, One D&D will be backwards compatible with 5e. So yes, things will be backwards compatible. However, the definition of backwards compatible that Wizards of the Coast is using repeatedly gets confused, because they explicitly said that all the core rules would get updated and heavily modified in places like the One D&D release trailer.

So, my guess is that you will be able to make adventures and supplements for 5th edition that, with a bit of work, can easily be run with the rules for the next edition of the game. That being said, I would advise you wait to see what 1DD is like when it releases and how the Open Game License looks then before getting too worried about how third-party content will work for the next edition.

I think the concern is that WotC is going to walk back in their promise to make 1D&D backwards compatible. Since they've lost their battle with changing 5e's licence, they'll write off 5e but release a new licence for 1D&D that does what they want. Having compatibility provides a back door, though - make content that is compatible with 5e and it works with 1D&D too! You could continue to make content for 1D&D on the old licence. The solution is, therefore, to remove compatibility. I believe that's the concern that Dindomir is driving at. 

Thus, old promises are irrelevant, because the concern is that they're no longer intended to be fulfilled. Dindomir wants a fresh recommitment to backwards compatibility so that we know that it's still the plan.

Quote from Linklite >>

Thus, old promises are irrelevant, because the concern is that they're no longer intended to be fulfilled. Dindomir wants a fresh recommitment to backwards compatibility so that we know that it's still the plan.

Fair enough. I guess that makes sense. That being said, I highly doubt that Wizards of the Coast will go back on their promises that they've already made in public, and that people keep loudly repeating and talking about as a benefit of 1DD.

If some current plus new players to D&D move to 1D&D, any content made for 5E under the old license will still drive customers to 1D&D because of backwards compatibility. If they cut off all 5E content and make 1D&D incompatible then those who stay with 5E and all the content it has to offer, as well as those customers who might have picked up 1D&D, may be lost to WotC forever as 5E has so much more to offer than a fledgling edition. At least for a few years. So I don’t think they will go back in that promise. 

Edit: I mean, if you were new to the hobby would you be more inclined to spend your limited cash on a new edition with three core rule books and maybe one or two adventures to run? Or spend that money on the older edition that has many rule books as well as many more adventures and an active 3rd party scene with a range of products available?

Quote from BoringBard >>

What Wizards meant by "backwards compatible" is that adventures and supplements will still be usable for the next edition, even though it might take a some modifications. A lot of people misunderstand what they were trying to say, but yes, One D&D will be backwards compatible with 5e. So yes, things will be backwards compatible. However, the definition of backwards compatible that Wizards of the Coast is using repeatedly gets confused, because they explicitly said that all the core rules would get updated and heavily modified in places like the One D&D release trailer.

So, my guess is that you will be able to make adventures and supplements for 5th edition that, with a bit of work, can easily be run with the rules for the next edition of the game. That being said, I would advise you wait to see what 1DD is like when it releases and how the Open Game License looks then before getting too worried about how third-party content will work for the next edition.

 I'm fine with the core three books going the way of the Dodo, and even other supplements once they are fully updated. But if I can't use Xanathar or MotM until they are updated I would be very disappointed and angry.

Quote from Linklite >>

I think the concern is that WotC is going to walk back in their promise to make 1D&D backwards compatible. Since they've lost their battle with changing 5e's licence, they'll write off 5e but release a new licence for 1D&D that does what they want. Having compatibility provides a back door, though - make content that is compatible with 5e and it works with 1D&D too! You could continue to make content for 1D&D on the old licence. The solution is, therefore, to remove compatibility. I believe that's the concern that Dindomir is driving at. 

Thus, old promises are irrelevant, because the concern is that they're no longer intended to be fulfilled. Dindomir wants a fresh recommitment to backwards compatibility so that we know that it's still the plan.

 Exactly this, yes.

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

If some current plus new players to D&D move to 1D&D, any content made for 5E under the old license will still drive customers to 1D&D because of backwards compatibility. If they cut off all 5E content and make 1D&D incompatible then those who stay with 5E and all the content it has to offer, as well as those customers who might have picked up 1D&D, may be lost to WotC forever as 5E has so much more to offer than a fledgling edition. At least for a few years. So I don’t think they will go back in that promise. 

 That is what I believe as well, and it is just common business sense really, but the anxiety is real until they re-commit.

As far as backwards compatibility goes, I understand that mentioned adventures and supplements, but I think more can still work. 

I look at it like this. Say you want to play a 5E bard in a 1D&D campaign. You would follow all the rules as described in the class description just like you do now. Your Bardic Inspiration will still be a bonus action to hand out and the player has 10 minutes to use it. Nothing in 1D&D changes that. I don’t think there is anything in the bard class and all of the subclasses becomes unusable. It’s not like they are getting rid of bonus actions (as far as we know) or any other main game mechanic. 

There are a number of D&D YouTubers who are being given hour interview with Kyle Brink, and they've been soliciting questions from their audiences, and I believe the backward compatibility question is something some of them will be asking.  My guess is we're more likely to get an answer in those videos than something put out on here.  Then again, those interviews could lead to another FAQ of some sort, I get the sense we'll start seeing these YouTuber vids by the end of the month.

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

As far as backwards compatibility goes, I understand that mentioned adventures and supplements, but I think more can still work. 

I look at it like this. Say you want to play a 5E bard in a 1D&D campaign. You would follow all the rules as described in the class description just like you do now. Your Bardic Inspiration will still be a bonus action to hand out and the player has 10 minutes to use it. Nothing in 1D&D changes that. I don’t think there is anything in the bard class and all of the subclasses becomes unusable. It’s not like they are getting rid of bonus actions (as far as we know) or any other main game mechanic. 

 It is absolutely backwards compatible now. But the last playtest was months before the OGL disaster. Plans theoretically could have changed. I really doubt it, but I'd rather have a written statement that everything continues as planned.

Quote from Dindomir_Eagleshield >>

Quote from ThriKreenWarrior >>

As far as backwards compatibility goes, I understand that mentioned adventures and supplements, but I think more can still work. 

I look at it like this. Say you want to play a 5E bard in a 1D&D campaign. You would follow all the rules as described in the class description just like you do now. Your Bardic Inspiration will still be a bonus action to hand out and the player has 10 minutes to use it. Nothing in 1D&D changes that. I don’t think there is anything in the bard class and all of the subclasses becomes unusable. It’s not like they are getting rid of bonus actions (as far as we know) or any other main game mechanic. 

 It is absolutely backwards compatible now. But the last playtest was months before the OGL disaster. Plans theoretically could have changed. I really doubt it, but I'd rather have a written statement that everything continues as planned.

 I agree and hope to see some clarification maybe in the videos MidnightPlat mentioned. 
And there are plenty out there who said when the very first UA came out (also well before the OGL debacle) that it wasn’t backwards compatible. So that’s why I gave the example I did. 

My only points on the matter :

It will be backwards compatible. Not doing so has proven disastrous each time they have moved forward. It may not be compatible with the SRD, and may not even use it. If so, this becomes a shifting point, akin to the 3.5 breaks.

it will likely end up with a whole new License. They will find a way, but it may not be in core rules — it may be purely where the money and legal support for this is: the settings. By removing setting specific stuff from the rules, they enable themselves to more effectively monetize and defend the individual settings. Especially FR. 6e compatible! But can it use FR stuff on drive thru? Nah. There is a lot of ability to monetize and merchandise settings, but only if they are distinct from the rules.

They will absolutely remove older sourcebooks according to some schedule from DDB. That timetable is where the questions are. Yes, I could be wrong. Ymwv .

they will almost certainly have the next UA cycle on it within the next 21 days.

Lastly, nah, not gonna argue any of this. 

It will be like running a 3.0 adventure like City of the Spider Queen in 3.5.  It will require some reading and modification on the DMs part.

Quote from AEDorsay >>

My only points on the matter :

It will be backwards compatible. Not doing so has proven disastrous each time they have moved forward. It may not be compatible with the SRD, and may not even use it. If so, this becomes a shifting point, akin to the 3.5 breaks.

it will likely end up with a whole new License. They will find a way, but it may not be in core rules — it may be purely where the money and legal support for this is: the settings. By removing setting specific stuff from the rules, they enable themselves to more effectively monetize and defend the individual settings. Especially FR. 6e compatible! But can it use FR stuff on drive thru? Nah. There is a lot of ability to monetize and merchandise settings, but only if they are distinct from the rules.

They will absolutely remove older sourcebooks according to some schedule from DDB. That timetable is where the questions are. Yes, I could be wrong. Ymwv .

they will almost certainly have the next UA cycle on it within the next 21 days.

Lastly, nah, not gonna argue any of this. 

 

 

 This sounds very reasonable and plausible so I hope you are right. But what do you mean by "shifting point"?

Quote from GodwinXZ >>

It will be like running a 3.0 adventure like City of the Spider Queen in 3.5.  It will require some reading and modification on the DMs part.

 That's fine, I have no issue with that.

Quote from Dindomir_Eagleshield >>

Quote from AEDorsay >>

My only points on the matter :

It will be backwards compatible. Not doing so has proven disastrous each time they have moved forward. It may not be compatible with the SRD, and may not even use it. If so, this becomes a shifting point, akin to the 3.5 breaks.

 This sounds very reasonable and plausible so I hope you are right. But what do you mean by "shifting point"?

3.5 was a really divisive and challenging roll out, because of the difference between long term players (mostly 1e and 2e like me) being pissy about it really sorta made a lot of stuff happen we didn’t like, while the newer players loved it and had all the cool things that they liked.

it probably doesn’t seem that way these days, but that division is what promoted some of the 4e stuff and as we know the 3.5 forks went crazy.  Set 3.5 and 1e side by side and they look almost like two different games — and set 5e next to 1e and they ARE two different games, lol.

so it caused a split, and it took 5e and nostalgia to get a lot of the old 1e and 2e folks to come back into the game. 

odds are good they will create a division point around the license in the same way that 3.5 did between the then newer players and the older players.

the shift point  will be pre and post 6e, and from here they can start looking at finding ways to monetize at a more granular level.

I do not expect any character, feat, magic spell, monster, skill check or any other feature of D&D one will be "playable" with a 5e wizard without some form of adjustment. Furthermore, I do not believe that the people at WotC will interpret this, if true, to be a breach of their promise to allow you to use 5e materials with the new system. I believe that the content included in the SRD (MM, DMG, PHB, Volos, Mordkainen's, etc, etc) is, for all intents and purposes, deprecated until further notice. Horde of the Dragon queen and it's ilk will be "playable with modification" which can mean anything from "we will provide a table/chart/errata for conversion" to "git gud scrub n lern teh new syst'm."

Whether you agree with them that that is "in the spirit of their promise" is irrelevant. They'll say what they need to say and do what they want to do and we'll react as appropriate at that time.

Edit: Saw the new Kyle brink interview. I no longer believe that WotC could reasonably claim that a half-step system rework meets their definition of backwards compatibility.