The Dungeons & Dragons Virtual Table

[luide]

As far as I know, there is no sound support whatsoever for Maptool - voice chat or otherwise. What am I missing?

Ironwolf was talking about text chat I believe.
For me, having integrated voice chat does not add any value for 3rd party VTT because of the multitude of good, free, multiperson voice chats available.

But if WoTC want to have true integrated tool set, having voice chat probably does belong in there.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Sound support should be in because new players and DMs will expect it. Nearly every online game today has sound support. Skype can be a bandwith hog with many players, and Teamspeak is cool but fiddly for beginners. Voice support should be in because many people cannot be buggered to look for alternatives, and you need those customers, too.

 

[renau1g]

the problem they'll run into with voice chat is that people will expect the same quality as ,say, the SKype offering. If they fail to produce those results people will be up in arms, but I'm not sure they have the budget for such an undertaking. (this is from someone who has no idea how much work it woudl be)

 

[IronWolf]

Ironwolf was talking about text chat I believe.

Yep, I was talking about text chat already in MapTool. I thought Hussar's post had been referring to both. I think that's because when I see chat I read it as text chat.

Sound support should be in because new players and DMs will expect it. Nearly every online game today has sound support.

Though several online games have it, nearly all the beyond casual players I know end up using Vent or Teamspeak to actually play because the built-in voice chat system isn't up to par when compared to an application actually built for the task.

Skype can be a bandwith hog with many players, and Teamspeak is cool but fiddly for beginners. Voice support should be in because many people cannot be buggered to look for alternatives, and you need those customers, too.

There are no guarantees that a built-in system would be any less fiddly or bandwidth intrusive than any of the existing alternatives out there now.

 

[Hussar]

True, but, I think Keefe the Thief has the right of it. People are going to expect voice chat built right in. It's not that difficult to have, particularly if you build it in from the beginning. Sure, you might not get Skype level quality, but, then again, I think people will be fairly happy with reasonable clarity.

One thing I really do hope they do is allow you to synch sound files across multiple users. I know OpenRPG allows you to do this. Makes it great for having soundtracks and sound effects to go with the game. Hey, we're already online, might as well use the resources that are available.

For myself, being able to drop in my own maps is an absolute must. If we're limited to WOTC maps, I won't go for it, regardless of how integrated other elements are.

I am glad they backed off the 3d thing actually. That would make the tool useless for most DM's since it would force you to use prefab map pieces. No thanks. Too fiddly.

 

[IronWolf]

One thing I really do hope they do is allow you to synch sound files across multiple users. I know OpenRPG allows you to do this. Makes it great for having soundtracks and sound effects to go with the game. Hey, we're already online, might as well use the resources that are available.

I've used background music and sound effects in my MapTool sessions before. The dripping water effects in the sewers was a hit as was the splashing water when critters came running through the water.

I usually use Ventrilo for voice as it is very lightweight. So I use a second instance of the Vent client on my GM machine which is hooked directly into WinAmp via a virtual audio cable. I have a playlist of background music and sound effects loaded and when I need them, I just double-click and the entire group in Ventrilo hear whatever sounds I play. It worked really well. It does take a little bit of setup.

 

[heruca]

Actually, for those of us who don't play online, there is no real value to a VTT.

There are VTTs (e.g., Battlegrounds) that are designed to support offline play in face-to-face games, using a projector, HDTV, or large LCD screen for the players to view the action. In effect, a digital battlemat. Doesn't look like WotC's Virtual Table is particularly well-suited to this sort of use, but we really only have a single screenshot to go on, for now.

 

[heruca]

The fact is there are a half-dozen or so different VTT's currently available at prices ranging from free to cheap. If those VTT's are already offering Features X, Y & Z, WotC will need to do the same to compete.

There are actually around 60 virtual tabletop programs (click here for links to all of them). Most are already available, but a handful are still in beta.

WotC only needs to put an official WotC/D&D logo on their VT, and even if their VT has minimal functionality compared to what's already available, they will quickly have a larger userbase than all the established VTs combined.

 

[Gort]

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...

You are confused. If it was 1d it'd be basically invisible.

 

[avin]

VTT? Wizards can't even finish CB and MB and want to try this?

I predict an EPIC fail.