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

[Velderan]

Roll for Combat cultivated that fanbase. They were extremely anti-WotC even as recent as a week ago. Watching them bash WotC was a favorite past-time of mine. There's not many online spaces I can go where I can even speak critically of 5e because WotC is so beloved in the industry (despite all their missteps this year.) There's a lot of reasons we should be able to be critical.
To completely 180 and gush about how much he loves the company - it doesn't feel authentic at all.

Sorta.

Stephen Glicker has definitely been a lot more critical about WotC, but Mark is typically a lot more even-keel about things in general. I don't even typically hear him gushing over PF2e and he co-wrote the rules for it. If something for PF2e is criticized, he'll explain the design intent behind why they made that choice at the time, how it's supposed to work at the table, and usually at least acknowledges that the criticism could be seen as valid from the perspective of the critic. Beyond the 2 of them, it really depends on who the guest is on how critical of WotC the stream gets. I usually try to listen in the background while I'm working and sometimes the guest is pretty horrible to listen to (the recent stream with Discourse Minis on it...? ugh...).

That having been said, Stephen is a businessman first and foremost. His game company makes 5e conversions of their PF2e products and he no doubt sees 3pp on DDB so he would be foolish to not see the possibilities for his company to expand their audience. While he's commented on WotC wanting to go full speed ahead with digital, it's not a hypocritical statement on his part IMO because he's acknowledged his own digital material outsells his print media to the point that their most recent Kickstarter didn't even offer a physical option and might not ever.

 

[Velderan]

I can chalk it up to him having a post-convention excitement about a new product. I've been there before.
Without him being completely nefarious, I can chalk it up to him doing a "reverse clickbait" to get views by being positive about a new product.
Still, I dislike DND Beyond and its UI. I am extremely worried as a fan of Battlezoo and their content on Foundry that if Glicker signs up with WotC that I may not get future content from them. And that may mean they stop producing for Pathfinder.
All this is a step-by-step severing of my ability to interact with the hobby. I get that. I understand that this means we rent content on monthly fees. That we lose control of our games. I understand all this.ut
I just hate to see it happening. And people being happy about it.

As long as Mark is the director of game design, I'm sure they'll continue to make PF2e stuff first and then hand it off to their 5e folks to convert it. As I understand their process, Mark looks at the 5e stuff to approve it before it goes out the door but he's not the one doing the conversion work. If their recent Kickstarter is any indication, you might not see as much print media from them and the Foundry stuff sells well enough for them. They've discussed pretty thoroughly why print is such a problem for a studio their size.

 

[Parmandur]

The popular theory is that you will to use the VTT.

I mean, it's possible, but come on. "Popular theory"?

 

[Shardstone]

Let me talk about subs on DND Beyond real quick.

I like the idea. I get that in real life, we're currently heading towards a world where everything is a subscription model. However, when it comes to RPG stuff, this is usually a net benefit for me -- especially if they give out PDFs (which is WotC's big weakness right now).

A subscription where I don't have to pay a lot of money to get new character options, monsters, traps, hazards, feats, and other rules is great for me. A subscription that gives me access to a VTT with a lot of integrated features with DND Beyond sounds like a dream.

Am I worried about losing all of my stuff since I don't own it? No. I have my ways of getting things I want in permanent form, and I'm paying the subscription for both access and convenience. And to be honest, RPGs work better when they are on subscription models. Having to print a new book every time I add to the game is just a lot. Having to make individual zines everytime I want to add to the game is easier, but still a lot. If more RPGs embraced the digital revolution in this way, they'd probably be more successful by an order of magnitude. Players can buy new options for them and the GM doesn't have to go through a massive book to understand it, or buy a 60 dollar book to provide it. Likewise, smaller adventures can come out with more frequency in a subscription model.

 

[darjr]

He’s very invested in any thing he is excited about.

He does listen even if it takes a while or direct hands in experience to get through, he’s human like the rest of us.

They did talk about the fact they’d think about being in DnDBeyond. Almost said it was a no brainer but reserved the right to say no.

I don’t think they recruited that fan base, but that fan base glommed on when they were being negative, and when they are not, that part of the fan base got toxic.

And don’t worry, I’m sure WotC will be pilloried by them again. Maybe soon.

 

[darjr]

I dint think you need a sub to use maps as an invited player. Do you? If so I imagine the 3D vtt will be the same.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I dint think you need a sub to use maps as an invited player. Do you? If so I imagine the 3D vtt will be the same.

I think you do. I know I sent a link to my FG group and they reported (or at least the one that tried) reported being taken to a sign in page. I just tested it now by opening an in private browser window and pasting the link and it took me to a sign in page.

 

[Velderan]

I think you do. I know I sent a link to my FG group and they reported (or at least the one that tried) reported being taken to a sign in page. I just tested it now by opening an in private browser window and pasting the link and it took me to a sign in page.

A subscription isn't the same as having an account. DDB has a free tier where you can do plenty without paying. When I ran 5e games on it, I was the only one paying for a sub to share my books with 6 other players who were all on the free tier.

 

[EpicureanDM]

Sales of the RPG were up last quarter, without releasing new product

Just because they're selling more doesn't mean they aren't losing money. And I disagree that they're selling more.

This is an opportunistic marriage of convenience between the D&DB team - who operate largely independent of the D&D books team - and RFC. The acquisition of D&DB blew a $140m-ish hole in the D&D segment's balance sheet. (Maybe it's on WotC's? Hard to say, but if I were the M:tG executives, I'd fight that tooth and nail.) D&DB isn't getting enough revenue from the D&D book team's products, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some sort of revenue from other sources, i.e. third-party licensing.

RFC's just looking for more digital sales and D&DB's a huge potential market for them. There's so much gullibility for them to take advantage of. On the one hand, there's someone at WotC who thinks that RFC will give them some sort of positive PR bump for the new VTT stuff. Anyone who looks at RFC's usual WotC content should be under no illusions about the disdain and cynicism with which RFC views the management of WotC. And yet some WotC/D&D team leaders have given RFC an exclusive glimpse into the VTT that will generate views on YouTube. This goes beyond the idea that the D&D team's trying to win over their worst critics into something more sad.

On the other hand, look at the benefit of the doubt being extended in this thread. How could anyone familiar with RFC's content not be skeptical, cynical, and suspicious of this new RFC video? RFC's whole shtick centers around their belief that WotC's executives and leaders are terrible at their jobs and actively hostile to the game's design and financial future. But when offered an exclusive peek at the current state of the VTT by those same executives and leaders, RFC jumps. Why should we extend any credibility to whatever RFC's going to say about the VTT? It's pure clout-chasing by these guys. Despite the fact that 99% of their content takes a massive dump on WotC, RFC were invited to share their impressions of the VTT with their audience of people who presumably also believe that WotC's stewardship of D&D is a disaster. WotC's most ardent defenders can be found in this thread and they're leaping to defend a group of YouTubers who never miss an opportunity to paint WotC and the D&D team in the most unflattering light. It's a staggering display of the clout wielded by RFC and how gullible some of WotC's fans are.

 

[Oofta]

Just because they're selling more doesn't mean they aren't losing money. And I disagree that they're selling more.

This is an opportunistic marriage of convenience between the D&DB team - who operate largely independent of the D&D books team - and RFC. The acquisition of D&DB blew a $140m-ish hole in the D&D segment's balance sheet. (Maybe it's on WotC's? Hard to say, but if I were the M:tG executives, I'd fight that tooth and nail.) D&DB isn't getting enough revenue from the D&D book team's products, so they're pulling out all the stops to get some sort of revenue from other sources, i.e. third-party licensing.

RFC's just looking for more digital sales and D&DB's a huge potential market for them. There's so much gullibility for them to take advantage of. On the one hand, there's someone at WotC who thinks that RFC will give them some sort of positive PR bump for the new VTT stuff. Anyone who looks at RFC's usual WotC content should be under no illusions about the disdain and cynicism with which RFC views the management of WotC. And yet some WotC/D&D team leaders have given RFC an exclusive glimpse into the VTT that will generate views on YouTube. This goes beyond the idea that the D&D team's trying to win over their worst critics into something more sad.

On the other hand, look at the benefit of the doubt being extended in this thread. How could anyone familiar with RFC's content not be skeptical, cynical, and suspicious of this new RFC video? RFC's whole shtick centers around their belief that WotC's executives and leaders are terrible at their jobs and actively hostile to the game's design and financial future. But when offered an exclusive peek at the current state of the VTT by those same executives and leaders, RFC jumps. Why should we extend any credibility to whatever RFC's going to say about the VTT? It's pure clout-chasing by these guys. Despite the fact that 99% of their content takes a massive dump on WotC, RFC were invited to share their impressions of the VTT with their audience of people who presumably also believe that WotC's stewardship of D&D is a disaster. WotC's most ardent defenders can be found in this thread and they're leaping to defend a group of YouTubers who never miss an opportunity to paint WotC and the D&D team in the most unflattering light. It's a staggering display of the clout wielded by RFC and how gullible some of WotC's fans are.

It was not an exclusive peak, they were not invited. They went to a con where it was being demoed and got a ticket like everyone else.

Why is it so impossible to believe they simply liked the implementation in comparison to other VTTs?