WotC Roll for Combat got to try the 3D vtt and he seems to like it. Live streaming now.

[Iosue]

Thanks, I guess I'll give it another attempt!

I really found the "pick one of these things, none of which you want" to be a barrier to entry. I'm not one who assumes that if they force you to make a choice, that none of those choices matter.

Well, the choices do matter if you're playing online, or utilizing DDB character sheets. Rolls from character sheets and encounters assigned to particular campaign show up in that campaign's gamelog. You're kind of a special case in that you're not using any of that.

Is there a way to create your own tokens? It seems like a lot of creatures don't have any images associated with them. (Plus I'd like to define what my PCs look like, even if they're not in DDB).

So, the easiest way to do this is create a homebrew monster. You go to "Create Monster," choose a pre-existing monster to use as a template, and then change the name and upload the image you want to use as an avatar. The homebrewed monster will then show up in the Monster tab of the Token Browser, without you needing to do anything else.

The alternative way is to create a character in DDB, upload an avatar for it, and then assign the character to the campaign you're using for Maps. This is a little more extra work, but this way the character tokens will show up in the Players tab of the Token Browser. Note, though, that you don't have to fully create a character in DDB. You can just click on Standard in the character builder, give the character a name and avatar, and do nothing else. You can still assign it to a campaign and subsequently use the token in Maps.

Also, new feature just dropped! You can now rename tokens in Maps!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, the choices do matter if you're playing online, or utilizing DDB character sheets. Rolls from character sheets and encounters assigned to particular campaign show up in that campaign's gamelog. You're kind of a special case in that you're not using any of that.


So, the easiest way to do this is create a homebrew monster. You go to "Create Monster," choose a pre-existing monster to use as a template, and then change the name and upload the image you want to use as an avatar. The homebrewed monster will then show up in the Monster tab of the Token Browser, without you needing to do anything else.

The alternative way is to create a character in DDB, upload an avatar for it, and then assign the character to the campaign you're using for Maps. This is a little more extra work, but this way the character tokens will show up in the Players tab of the Token Browser. Note, though, that you don't have to fully create a character in DDB. You can just click on Standard in the character builder, give the character a name and avatar, and do nothing else. You can still assign it to a campaign and subsequently use the token in Maps.

Also, new feature just dropped! You can now rename tokens in Maps!

Thanks again! Finding work-arounds is generally how I wind up simplifying systems for myself. With Maps, I just kept bumping up against how they want us to do it. I follow what you're suggesting with your work-arounds. I'll give it a shot!

It'll be nice when you can drop pictures in to tokens directly (a functionality that I hope will come). Also, I think one of the goals of the 2024 MM will be to include art for every monster in a way that will help to have less of the monsters in Beyond come up with those generic images.

 

[SteveC]

I watched the stream, and I think Stephen was genuinely surprised at what he saw, and liked the look (it uses the Unity engine) combined with the minimalist approach. This is the exact opposite from my experience with Foundry where the modules take care of everything. My players were just blown away that when the rogue is flanking it automatically deals with AC issues and gives sneak attack, for instance. Nothing like that is going on here, and I think Stephen genuinely likes that.

 

[Retreater]

I watched the stream, and I think Stephen was genuinely surprised at what he saw, and liked the look (it uses the Unity engine) combined with the minimalist approach. This is the exact opposite from my experience with Foundry where the modules take care of everything. My players were just blown away that when the rogue is flanking it automatically deals with AC issues and gives sneak attack, for instance. Nothing like that is going on here, and I think Stephen genuinely likes that.

I wonder what he'd think playing Pathfinder 2 on it? (His current livestream game is PF2.)
For me, I really appreciate the automation for that system.

 

[darjr]

I wonder what he'd think playing Pathfinder 2 on it? (His current livestream game is PF2.)
For me, I really appreciate the automation for that system.

I think they did talk about that and I remember saying that it might be an issue

 

[SteveC]

I wonder what he'd think playing Pathfinder 2 on it? (His current livestream game is PF2.)
For me, I really appreciate the automation for that system.

I think he sort of talked about that in a positive light. He was talking about other systems and was genuinely positive. I think he would actually like it because he seems to be the type of GM who can manage the bandwidth of all those details. I just love running PF2 on Foundry but I recently played it in person, and it ran just fine that way. I sort of wondered how it would work, and it ran pretty easy at 4-6th level.

I think a VTT like WotC is showing off would work for games like PF2 but I also wonder if a lot of GMs really prefer the automation.

 

[Reynard]

I think a VTT like WotC is showing off would work for games like PF2 but I also wonder if a lot of GMs really prefer the automation.

For myself, it is something I get used to.and then miss when it is gone. 5E is very well implemented on Fantasy Grounds and it can be a bit of a struggle to.use the platform for a game that isn't so well implemented or automated. In theory it should not be a problem-- I run games in person with no automation at all -- but it still frustrates me.

A VTT that intentionally avoids most automation rather than only doing a single or handful of games well would actually be preferable from that perspective. If all it did was move minis on a map and roll dice, it is as good for D&D as it is for Pathfinder or Bule Planet or OG Deadlands.

 

[Parmandur]

I wonder what he'd think playing Pathfinder 2 on it? (His current livestream game is PF2.)
For me, I really appreciate the automation for that system.

Je talked about wanting to try it, and the developers said they aimed for thst to be doable. The point is for this to be a digital miniatures and terrain set-up, not something like Foundry.

 

[Zaukrie]

Je talked about wanting to try it, and the developers said they aimed for thst to be doable. The point is for this to be a digital miniatures and terrain set-up, not something like Foundry.

well, we don't, I think, know the long term plans for the VTT......but short term it sure looks like talespire and mirrorscape....both of which will not be happy when this rolls out, IMO.

 

[Clint_L]

Yeah, I think their goal is basically something like a virtual Dwarven Forge, plus miniatures.

[nervously eyes garage shelves full of actual Dwarven Forge and miniatures]