DDI Virtual Table Beta Tour and Future

w_earle_wheeler said:

That argument was never buried. As a matter of fact, I think that argument is a crest of the flag of the Edition Wars. While I don't participate in them, it should be soundly obvious that they did really exist, and that since the annoucement of 5e, the previous "war" has a clear victor.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. Or, in this case, re-roll a Spellscared Dragonborn Warlord and wait 4 years to fight the war.

Click to expand...

I understand your points, and I think you've had some valid thoughts in this thread, but I think the point that people are trying to make is that the subject of the thread isn't about the edition wars. It's very specifically about the new VTT.

I believe that constructive criticism of the VTT is not just okay, but is exactly what WotC needs and wants. As such, any constructive criticism I'm sure would be greatly appreciated by both WotC and our fellow posters. For those that don't want to hear any criticism whatsoever, I believe they are wrong, and are just going to have to live with it.

I really don't think that anything concerning the edition wars or peoples complaints are in danger of being forgotten. I also don't believe there are any clear victors in the edition wars. I think it's good that WotC has realized and acknowledged some of the mistakes they made, but that does not mean that the edition wars were inherently a constructive thing. Besides, if there's one thing I've learned from 21 years in the military, nobody wins a War (or a fight). Objectives may be achieved, but once one needs to resort to fighting, one has already lost. I would imagine that there are some casualties of the edition wars that can never be convinced to come back because of them. That's a loss no matter who is considered to have "won". That makes me quite sad.



So, back to discussion and criticisms of the VTT.

I agree that some may find the voice fonts more annoying than helpful. I haven't heard them yet myself, but to me they sound quite intriguing. I'm actually pretty good with voices, so I really don't need them. But not everyone can do that, and may really like the feature. But even I am interested in playing around with them. They sound like they may be a fun toy. And let's be honest, D&D is just a fun toy also. We may be mostly adults who play, but it's still playing.

I think WotC has gone a long way towards making the VTT something quite good. I am seriously impressed by the multiple ruleset support. I'd really still like character/monster/encounter builders for the other edtions also. So the importability that 4E players enjoy, and that D&D next will enjoy, is also there for all edtions. But that would be for development much farther down the road. They've got other fish to fry right now. But, in the future, I'd also like to see virtual minis as part of the VTT, and not just tokens. I've never really liked tokens. I prefer the environment to look as realistic as possible.

They still have one other major thing to address though before I'll give DDI another try, and that's a return of downloadable books. If they do that, I'm back in. I certainly hope they do as I'm getting quite excited about the future of D&D. I see some really good things coming down the pipe, and this VTT seems a really good step in that direction.

For those who've used it already, does the VTT have the ability to have a pleyer only point of view? Can it gray or black out areas of the map that the PC's haven't explored yet? If not, those are definitely features that I would want also.

w_earle_wheeler said:

I don't know. Maybe reading the article?

Is positivity truly opposed by critical thought? Is the tone of the article so translucent that the smallest pinprick in it's skin will cause it to leak -- or -- Is one person's interpretation truly a symptom of global negativity?

If WotC had listened to the negative trolls (hey, remember that flash animation where the dragon poops on the troll who is sitting at the computer!) between 3.5 and 4.0, they wouldn't be in the situation they are in now.

That's because those "negative" trolls weren't really trolls, they were fans. And they weren't really negative, they were critical.

Click to expand...

Thanks for paying attention and I am sorry if you did not like the article. First off I will not address your attempting to read my mind in regards to my intentions and feelings on the table. Now I will tell you how I feel about this BETA TEST.

At this point the table will easily handle a 4E game and since most controls are manual it can handle a lot more than that with a few clicks of a button.
It is included in the price of a DDI subscription which also gives you Dungeon, Dragon, Character Builder, Monster Builder, other tools, and advanced content. All of that for about the price of a fast food meal a month if you pay for a yearly subscription. That is not a bad deal. That is how I feel personally (so you do not need to speak for my motives anymore).

Now as far as listening to the fans between 3.5 and 4E, WotC admitted that they were wrong about that and it could have been done different and will be with the new edition. We can't change the past but we can learn from the mistakes and not repeat them. If you do that you are good in my book. I have always maintained a positive attitude and feel like it has opened a lot of doors in the rpg community. I really hope you try the Virtual Table and sign up for the open playtest so that you can give your input, and perhaps let go about what happened before.

While w_earle_wheeler might be a bit... abrasive in his points, I don't think he's totally off base here either.

Let's not forget, this VTT has been in development by paid professionals, for TWO YEARS. While something like Maptools has been around for a while longer, it's also a fan-based, open source effort. I would expect that something that has actual money backing it to be a whole lot better than what's out there for free.

And, having used the WOTC VTT I don't think it's better. Granted, it's not really worse, but, it's also no better. Browser based is nice, true. And the ease of use is also sweet. But, two things prevent me from giving this a big thumbs up;

1. Not allowing users to use their own maps. This is utter, and complete, . For one, it's ridiculously easy to prevent the VTT from being used as some sort of image share (because, you know, email is too difficult :/). Set it so that only the DM can save the map. There, done. No file sharing possible. WOTC's off the hook. Forcing users to use WOTC maps, and, possibly forcing users to actually PAY for them, is not a good idea.

2. Tokens. Now, I realize they're still in beta, but, good grief, adding tokens would take all of a couple of minutes of work. You've got two years of Dungeon, and Dragon magazine art sitting there, and WOTC owns the rights to it. Surf through the mags, cut up some nice tokens from existing books, and put them there for use. If they are actually stupid enough to monetize tokens, (ie. ask people to pay for them) they deserve the heaps of ridicule that will inevitably come their way.

While I do realize that something like Maptools does come with a fairly steep learning curve (although it's a MUCH shallower curve than something like OpenRPG) and it certainly earns points for simplicity, the two points above are complete deal breakers for me.

Hussar said:

While w_earle_wheeler might be a bit... abrasive in his points, I don't think he's totally off base here either.

Let's not forget, this VTT has been in development by paid professionals, for TWO YEARS. While something like Maptools has been around for a while longer, it's also a fan-based, open source effort. I would expect that something that has actual money backing it to be a whole lot better than what's out there for free.

And, having used the WOTC VTT I don't think it's better. Granted, it's not really worse, but, it's also no better. Browser based is nice, true. And the ease of use is also sweet. But, two things prevent me from giving this a big thumbs up;

1. Not allowing users to use their own maps. This is utter, and complete, . For one, it's ridiculously easy to prevent the VTT from being used as some sort of image share (because, you know, email is too difficult :/). Set it so that only the DM can save the map. There, done. No file sharing possible. WOTC's off the hook. Forcing users to use WOTC maps, and, possibly forcing users to actually PAY for them, is not a good idea.

Click to expand...

QFT. To get an idea of just how much potential you have with the ability to use any maps you choose, I suggest anyone who hasn't go to Google and do an image search on the phrase "dungeon maps" (no quotes). I had a nerdgasm the first time I did!

2. Tokens. Now, I realize they're still in beta, but, good grief, adding tokens would take all of a couple of minutes of work. You've got two years of Dungeon, and Dragon magazine art sitting there, and WOTC owns the rights to it. Surf through the mags, cut up some nice tokens from existing books, and put them there for use. If they are actually stupid enough to monetize tokens, (ie. ask people to pay for them) they deserve the heaps of ridicule that will inevitably come their way.

While I do realize that something like Maptools does come with a fairly steep learning curve (although it's a MUCH shallower curve than something like OpenRPG) and it certainly earns points for simplicity, the two points above are complete deal breakers for me.

Click to expand...

I was going to post the same thing. From the get go the idea of paying extra to use free resources (if my understanding of Fair Use is correct) was just...galling. I just started using d20Pro in December, but it's already impressed me with the flexibility and freedom of choice it provides. And the folks on their forums are an excellent bunch, and have been more than helpful.

But then I'm what some would call, "overly enthusiastic" about such things. From a practical perspective, it's more important to have what you need to accomplish your goal. If the VTT does that for even one group, I say more power to WotC.