D&D (2024) Review of 1D &D VTT

[TheAlkaizer]

but it won't be pay to win

What's even pay to win in a VTT?

 

[dave2008]

What's even pay to win in a VTT?

This is another subject that was not discussed in the article. I am very confused if @PJ Coffey participated in the 3D VTT playtest or if they are just linking to those that did and making random comments that don't relate to the actual playtest. PJ, can you clarify?

 

[PJ Coffey]

This is another subject that was not discussed in the article. I am very confused if @PJ Coffey participated in the 3D VTT playtest or if they are just linking to those that did and making random comments that don't relate to the actual playtest. PJ, can you clarify?

Well Dave, the article does have the author's name on, so I consider that a clue.

My website is Homebrew and Hacking which if you have a read round you'll notice is written in a certain style and doesn't provide financial support to substack.

 

[PJ Coffey]

What's even pay to win in a VTT?

I don't know. It would be on the nose to be able to pay for magic items and advantage on your rolls.

And yet, it would also be extremely foolish to use NDAs in an attempt to secure a fait accompli. If you need the NDAs you need the people and if you don't catch the largest independent journalism platform for RPGs then that's a problem.

TL;DR: I have a low opinion of a corporation lead by someone who thinks that people who play D&D online are culturally "computer gamers".

 

[tetrasodium]

What history is repeating itself? That they do not use Open Source? I am not aware of there being any viable open VTT they could base it on. They certainly are using an existing 3D engine... I am not seeing a repeat here. Likening implementing D&D RAW with little ability to customize (if that is even true...) to not using OSS is a stretch at best

Not only are there college course on it many good in depth books have been written about Microsoft's war on Linux and their behavior during what got called the browser wars, much of it was so counterproductive Microsoft is now one of it not the largest contributors to OSS now. Wotc is engaging in similar counterproductive behavior.

It doesn't matter too much if wotc's vtt is OSS or not, but it very much matters if their vtt is made for the needs of GMs or not. With any ttrpg & vtt choice GMs have an extremely extremely outsized role in choosing what vtt the gm will be using at their table and preparing for their sessions. Players have almost none simply because they do almost none of the work in building the adventure the gm brings to the table each week. That's a situation analogous to a high level IT worker's damsay over software

Despite the GM's outsized role in both of those the blog post linked in the OP writes almost nothing on what the vtt offers a gm aside from mentioning some pretty severe problems they faced as a gm in the highly curated closed test. Things like players being able to see secret areas they shouldn't because of fancy 3d camera positioning or the gm not being able to do the most basic of basic gm activity like simply being able to see a player's character sheet speak to a fairly significant disregard for the GM and are not even moving beyond this one write-up or getting into things like uvtt support.
If wotc is serious about their vtt they need to put dramatically more than zero effort into spotlighting what it will offer the gm even if some of that effort is talking about whiteboard chats and power point friendly lists of internal design goals.

 

[PJ Coffey]

How did you come up with this opinion about the 3D VTT? I didn't see anything in that review about being able to use 3PP content or homebrew. Heck, they don't even have DnD Beyond compatibility yet. Where are you getting these ideas from?

Is it not very obvious Dave? What incentive does Hasbro have to allow 3pp to develop for its proprietary platform?

I mean, if you were in charge and wanted to monetise the game more what would you do?

Hasbro clearly doesn't feel it needs the 3pp market anymore and honestly with its own success and the DM guild I don't blame it.

Why should they let others profit off their success on their new platform? What's that doing for next quarter's numbers?

 

[PJ Coffey]

This

is something I didn't see at all. If you're using the D&D integration tools and combat tracker, they implement some of the D&D rules. But they said in the first video that the combat tracker is optional and something you don't have to use. It will give you tools for implementing D&D, but they explicitly stated that it won't be limited to D&D, it can be used as just a virtual table top with no rules integration whatsoever.

In any case I'm not exactly holding my breath for this. But I also don't put too much stock into very early builds and I don't expect every function I could want even in the initial release.

From the finished article, Daniel Kwan wrote:

• The encounter mode seen in the existing marketing videos automatically rolls and tracks initiative.

• When selecting an attack or spell, the system automatically highlights valid targets. This is a nice accessibility feature. The system similarly does this for movement, highlighting the area within a characters base movement speed

• Objects weren’t particularly interactive and the terrain board felt like a static art piece. There were a lot of interesting features that I wanted to click on, but everything apart from the miniatures wasn’t interactive. Doors didn’t open or close and furniture pieces were fixed in place. I’d love to be able to tip a table over to create cover for my character!

• Despite what I liked about the hide walls feature, structures did not have multiple levels. Some of my biggest frustrations were not being able to put my rogue miniature atop a tree or position my ranger in an over watch position on the roof of a building.

• While encounter mode was nice (see my note on initiative tracking), it lacked action tracking. There were no indicators of whether a character still had any actions, a bonus action, or a reaction available after casting spells or rolling attacks

====
PJ Coffey writes:

I'm a 3pp developer. I have a book on vehicles sloooowly wending it's way to general release.
It seems... unlikely that short of me climbing mount impossible and learning to code on top of my day job and my TTRPG design that I'll get anywhere with this.

I have extensive character creation books and feats which mess with things like initiatives. Not all base speeds are 30 in my books and I kinda don't want them to be and if you're buying my stuff than that's fine. Not all the character options I offer come in Medium and Small either. They're not all bipedal. I guess it depends what you consider acceptable really.

 

[Oofta]

Is it not very obvious Dave? What incentive does Hasbro have to allow 3pp to develop for its proprietary platform?

I mean, if you were in charge and wanted to monetise the game more what would you do?

Hasbro clearly doesn't feel it needs the 3pp market anymore and honestly with its own success and the DM guild I don't blame it.

Why should they let others profit off their success on their new platform? What's that doing for next quarter's numbers?

Because people will still be expected to pay something for the VTT. They could potentially integrate 3PP sales into DDB and the VTT. Nobody is saying they're going to give it away for free, but look at the percentages. D&D is the 500 pound gorilla in the room, it far outsells other games. So they know that the majority of people will probably be playing D&D and those, along with people that use both the VTT and DDB will likely be their primary target. On the other hand, if they can get a little cash from people they wouldn't get anything from anyway.

Another possibility is that they provide support for 3PP but take a percentage of the money the 3PP people get. Again, why not? They already support 3PP through DMsGuild and just take a percentage of the sales. They may want to pull all that stuff into DDB so that they don't have to split profits with DMsGuild.

But most importantly? Cooler heads have prevailed and they realize that support from 3PP is part of the ecosystem that keeps D&D at the top of the heap. It's why they opened up the core game system to the creative commons license. In addition, many if not most groups have some level of house rules. They aren't building a video game, they're building a VTT. They don't need to enforce any rules, they can enforce rules if it makes sense to the group using it. It was explicitly stated in the first video that they weren't limiting to straight D&D, which to me makes a lot of sense.

 

[Oofta]

See my other post, but a few notes

From the finished article, Daniel Kwan wrote:

• The encounter mode seen in the existing marketing videos automatically rolls and tracks initiative.

It is an option to do this. You don't have to. Again, go back to the initial video. Obviously they're going to show that the option to use all the bells and whistles turned on but the plan is to select which bells and whistles you use.

• When selecting an attack or spell, the system automatically highlights valid targets. This is a nice accessibility feature. The system similarly does this for movement, highlighting the area within a characters base movement speed

• Objects weren’t particularly interactive and the terrain board felt like a static art piece. There were a lot of interesting features that I wanted to click on, but everything apart from the miniatures wasn’t interactive. Doors didn’t open or close and furniture pieces were fixed in place. I’d love to be able to tip a table over to create cover for my character!

• Despite what I liked about the hide walls feature, structures did not have multiple levels. Some of my biggest frustrations were not being able to put my rogue miniature atop a tree or position my ranger in an over watch position on the roof of a building.

• While encounter mode was nice (see my note on initiative tracking), it lacked action tracking. There were no indicators of whether a character still had any actions, a bonus action, or a reaction available after casting spells or rolling attacks

====
PJ Coffey writes:

I'm a 3pp developer. I have a book on vehicles sloooowly wending it's way to general release.
It seems... unlikely that short of me climbing mount impossible and learning to code on top of my day job and my TTRPG design that I'll get anywhere with this.

I have extensive character creation books and feats which mess with things like initiatives. Not all base speeds are 30 in my books and I kinda don't want them to be and if you're buying my stuff than that's fine. Not all the character options I offer come in Medium and Small either. They're not all bipedal. I guess it depends what you consider acceptable really.

It's pre-alpha build. It's not like most of these things are something I could easily do in Roll20 either.

 

[PJ Coffey]

They already support 3PP through DMsGuild and just take a percentage of the sales.

They and DTRPG takes 50%.

DTRPG when exclusive takes 30%.

Itch.io varies.

I expect when they "open it up" and take 25% in the first year, you'll hail it as a great victory. I expect they'll probably aim closer to 45% which will reward DMG developers.

I mean, I know what decisions I would make to maximise short-term profit.

They may want to pull all that stuff into DDB so that they don't have to split profits with DMsGuild.

Yes, centralised control increases their control over their property and things that others make.

Do you remember less than 5 years ago when LGBTQ content was taken down more frequently from DTRPG? Eventually they changed their minds for the better.

But most importantly? Cooler heads have prevailed and they realize that support from 3PP is part of the ecosystem that keeps D&D at the top of the heap. It's why they opened up the core game system to the creative commons license.

Goodness you got that from their statements? Well to each their own.

In addition, many if not most groups have some level of house rules. They aren't building a video game, they're building a VTT. They don't need to enforce any rules, they can enforce rules if it makes sense to the group using it. It was explicitly stated in the first video that they weren't limiting to straight D&D, which to me makes a lot of sense.

Can you make your own classes on DnDBeyond?