The Dungeons & Dragons Virtual Table

[IronWolf]

There are video tutorials on the Fantasy Grounds Website. They are priceless for figuring the software out. They help make a steep learning curve much easier. I'd link, but its a pita to do that from my ipad

Yeah - video tutorials for VTTs really help ease the learning curve. While I don't use FG, I found the video tutorials for MapTool the most useful piece of getting up to speed on the tool. The VTTs do take some practice to get used to using them, but worth the time up front.

The video tutorials for FG are on the right side:

Fantasy Grounds :: The Virtual Tabletop for Pen & Paper Roleplaying Games

 

[Dungeoneer]

My prediction: the DDI sub will remain much the same as it is now when the VTT comes out. But if you want to use the VTT - subscribe to DDI Gold!

That or microtransactions (buying tokens and tilesets) are another possibility. But they are going to try and make money off this thing. I have no problem with that... if they build a quality product.

But I would be very surprised if there wasn't an extra cost above and beyond the current DDI sub price.

 

[Spatula]

My preference is actually to have the voice system handled outside the VTT, primarily because I would rather development time be spent working on the VTT functions and such than rebuilding the wheel when there are several freely available voice chat options.

With that said, what are the benefits people see to integrated voice chat over letting a dedicated voice chat client handle it (like Skype or Ventrilo)? Maybe I am overlooking some key advantage to an integrated setup?

Integrated voice chat has it's benefits, especially when playing online with strangers. You don't need to figure out who has what software installed and don't need to coordinate getting everyone into the same virtual audio space. Personally I think it's a bad idea, because as you say, it's a resource drain on the small development team and there's plenty of free alternatives. But also, I remember how Blizzard seriously screwed up trying to add integrated voice chat to WoW, and I wonder if the same sort of thing will happen here.

 

[El Mahdi]

Q: Is this VT the same virtual tabletop that we saw demos of when 4th edition was announced?
A: It's the same concept of interconnected tools to facilitate a D&D session, with a different look and feel.

A true statement, but talk about understatement...Wow!

The original was supposed to be 1st person rather than overhead (so as to only show what your character sees, rather than see the whole area as if you had a spy drone at your disposal), have all the D&D minis rendered into 3D figures, have 3D terrain and objects, realistic lighting effects, and be able to import your personalized 3D character into the environment, along with the basic tools required to run a game session.

Instead, it's a basic 1d overhead map program with the basic tools to run a game session. And it's almost three years after the original demo...

"It's the same concept of interconnected tools to facilitate a D&D session, with a different look and feel." - I don't know if WotC's PR skills have gotten better lately or not (as I don't really follow Wizards anymore), but their ability to spin has definitely increased. (For the record, I do not see that as a good thing...) Do they really expect people to read that and just go "Oh...okay..."

The correct answer to: "Is this VT the same virtual tabletop we saw demos of when 4th Edition was announced?", would have been: "No. This is basically the same as other virtual tabletops you see around the internet and provided by other companies and services, just with 100% official 4E support and connectivity with DDI's character builder and our future monster builder." That last part is the only thing that separates it from other VT's, and has absolutely nothing that a non-4E player would be interested in. (...and on a side note: didn't WotC's own polling show that customers actually wanted the monster builder and other features first?)

As a non-4E player, a VT with a three-dimensional first-person environment with variable lighting effects, 3D terrain and objects, and customized/personalized miniatures and figures - would give me a reason to go to Wizards.com rather than sombody elses site. However, this Virtual Tabletop? Not a chance.

 

[Goonalan]

I'm a 30 year D&D (fairly exclusive) DM, who without a VTT (or equivalent) wouldn't have been able to game for the last X years.

I will pay extra for the VTT.

I've had few problems with the CB (one-crash), my players have had few or no problems also.

I use the MB and the Comp most every day- they still make me giggle at how easy they are to use (I'm not very computer savvy).

I will pay extra for tokens (micotransactions- whatever that is), the same way I pay for tokens/minis and maps through RPGNow (& ENWorld) and others.

I don't love WOTC.

I'm not a fanboy.

I pay nearly twice as much for my newspaper, bacon bun and coffee every morning as I do for my DDI subscription, 50% of the time the bacon bun is the only thing I get to eat at work.

I'm not rich, or even well off- or else I don't consider myself to be in comparison to my friends who got proper degrees (and jobs).

I earn just about the average income for the UK, probably slightly less.

I don't have a big house or a fancy car, I get the bus to work or else walk.

I do spend more on D&D (not just WOTC stuff but as much 3rd party 4e stuff as I can find that fits my needs- like Nevermet, Open Design et al) than anything else/month- maybe films and books run a close second/third, of my disposable income of course.

I have (and continue to) teach and/or introduce at least a dozen people to D&D every year.

I like 4e.

I liked 3.5e

I liked 3e.

I liked 2e/Advanced.

I liked 1e.

I have the rules et al for all of the above, and many more games beside.

I chose to play (DM) 4e at present.

Sometimes I don't like WOTC- I write to them when this happens, they reply- and the problem (mostly) gets fixed.

I think my DDI subscription offers excellent value for money.

I'm a very strange man.

Love Goonalan.

 

[ki11erDM]

WotC will find a method for charging for additional tokens and tiles. They will always charge for art assets, because artists have to eat.

If they were wise they would give us two options:
1) The DM account must be a “Gold” DDI member and they have free access to all available tokens and tiles.
2) The DM account is “Silver” (current pricing) and you only get what comes in the first release and you can buy new tokens and tiles as they come out.

The issue with that is how to deal with billing and keeping track of who has what.

Question: Did we know if this is a downloaded client or a “web app”?

 

[OchreJelly]

A true statement, but talk about understatement...Wow!

The original was supposed to be 1st person rather than overhead (so as to only show what your character sees, rather than see the whole area as if you had a spy drone at your disposal), have all the D&D minis rendered into 3D figures, have 3D terrain and objects, realistic lighting effects, and be able to import your personalized 3D character into the environment, along with the basic tools required to run a game session.

Instead, it's a basic 1d overhead map program with the basic tools to run a game session. And it's almost three years after the original demo...

I don't think the original idea was ever supposed to be first person. I'm not sure where you got that from. I never went to the game day demos, so you could be right about 1st person -- I just have never heard that before. And calling the new one "1D" is really selling it short a dimension

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZ2WdeTo1M"]YouTube - Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition: Part 2[/ame]

From this demo, the original had a rotatable map which still appeared to be based on their tiles. It had dynamic lighting and 3d virtual minis.

Frankly I'm really happy they decided to go with 2D "Tokens" over 3d models for a few reasons:

1) Making 3D models is resource intensive. Making them good 3D models is significantly more resource intensive. I thought those models looked primitive, even when I first watched these years ago. They have not aged well (and yes I understand it was a prototype).
2) WotC has a huge catalog of quality 2D artwork that they can leverage to turn into tokens. They may as well play to their strength and stick with that.

 

[IronWolf]

.... bacon bun and coffee every morning as I do for my DDI subscription, 50% of the time the bacon bun is the only thing I get to eat at work.

Off-topic - but tell me more about this bacon bun! That just sounds good!

 

[Dungeoneer]

I don't think the original idea was ever supposed to be first person. I'm not sure where you got that from. I never went to the game day demos, so you could be right about 1st person -- I just have never heard that before. And calling the new one "1D" is really selling it short a dimension

I think they just mean that it was fully 3D and that you could have the same sort of perspective on the map that one would expect to have in an FPS.

 

[Goonalan]

Off-topic - but tell me more about this bacon bun! That just sounds good!

This morning it was bacon, sausage and egg- and when I smiled nicely at the lady she game me an my mate an extra half-sausage each.

Sauce was involved.

It got messy soon after.

I have no regrets.