Status of D&D Game Table?

[Mephistopheles]

There are some respectable independent offerings that are free, both for online and on-the-table play. WotC would need to better those offerings, or at the very least match them, if they had any serious hope of making money from it - not to mention recovering any prior investment in abandoned work.

The recent measured response from WotC to Masterplan gave me the impression that they have no intention of releasing anything similar anytime soon. If that's true it may not be such a bad thing. The independent developers are doing good work. It makes sense for WotC to leave them to it and invest in producing things that aren't practical for the independents, either for technical or legal reasons.

Whether the reasoning inside WotC resembles that in any way I have no idea, but I can see some good reasons for not holding their initial plans and promises against them.

 

[IronWolf]

There are some respectable independent offerings that are free, both for online and on-the-table play. WotC would need to better those offerings, or at the very least match them, if they had any serious hope of making money from it - not to mention recovering any prior investment in abandoned work.

Yes, I think the competition for them has risen as the free products have matured into pretty good VTTs. Makes me wonder if they wouldn't be better to simply publish a polished framework for something like Maptools.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Yes, I think the competition for them has risen as the free products have matured into pretty good VTTs. Makes me wonder if they wouldn't be better to simply publish a polished framework for something like Maptools.

I agree that this would be the smart way to go but there are some issues;

1) the VTTs I have looked at have been implemented in Java or Python.

2) WoTC have made a decision to go with .NET and I suspect that there is a corporate policy to go with Microsoft product and that it is made at a non technical level so difficult or impossible to change in the short term.

3) That all the bits integrate. That is, the Monster builder, encounter and campaign manager, mapper and VTT are integrated suite.

Now having said that, If I were in charge I would buy Masterplan (I have not tried myself but I have heard good things about and it is in .Net. So I would pay the developer to change the GUI to match the Adventure Tools look and feel and a plugin interface to implement so that the Adventure Tools can talk to and manage the Masterplan components.

Then, I would buy a Python based VTT, assuming that there is no good .Net one out there. There might be, I have not found one but then I have not looked that hard.

So, why Python? well there are good Python implementations that are integrated with .NET and that should facilitate creation of the necessary components to allow the VTT to integrate with the rest of the Suite and the Character Builder. It is also less for the WoTC developers to learn since they can use their existing tools and can do the bulk of the work in the language they are most familar with, make used of interfaces and plugins to connect the bits together.

Once they have a working integrated suite then they can port the VTT over to native .NET languages, if they want to.

What are the potential pitfalls? Well there are a few. I suspect that originally WoTC viewed the VTT and its integration in to the other tools as a product that they can charge a premium for. If they buy in that could be an issue with the fans since there would be an undoubted preception that WoTC is taking something that was free and now charging for it. As well as removing the perviously free content.

Some of the free VTTs are open source and the developers might not sell for any price.
So what could WoTC do then, well I think that they should monetise it in a different way.
Exploit the open source nature of these developements and fork one of the existing VTTs by creating a framework that connects it to the rest of the suite but that only works with an existing DDI account and uses web services to pull information from other WoTC applications. It means that you need an active connection to import encounter data in to the VTT.
Then add additional services that would be premium content like by appointment but nearly always avialable LFR sessions or encounter sessions or stuff like that.
Another thing that has occured to me, now while I have had a look at a couple of the free VTTs I have not really used one in anger but the ones I have seen use tokens to show the locations of players, monsters etc. WoTC demos of their planned VTT showed 3d virtual minis, so that could be an issue also. They may feel obliged to deliver that also.

Just my 2cents.

 

[wayne62682]

So, why Python? well there are good Python implementations that are integrated with .NET and that should facilitate creation of the necessary components to allow the VTT to integrate with the rest of the Suite and the Character Builder. It is also less for the WoTC developers to learn since they can use their existing tools and can do the bulk of the work in the language they are most familar with, make used of interfaces and plugins to connect the bits together.

There's also IronPython, which allows (almost) seamless integration between Python and .NET, including using WPF and whatnot.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

There's also IronPython, which allows (almost) seamless integration between Python and .NET, including using WPF and whatnot.

Well I have never used Python in .NET so I was not going to make any reccomendation.

 

[IronWolf]

1) the VTTs I have looked at have been implemented in Java or Python.

I typically use Maptools which is Java based.

I know there is one out there using Python, which one is it? I can't recall.

There is TTopRPG which uses .Net 3.5. I've played in one game with it. It didn't seem to have as many features as Maptools, but it certainly worked well enough and the developer seems quite willing to take input from people using the tool.

2) WoTC have made a decision to go with .NET and I suspect that there is a corporate policy to go with Microsoft product and that it is made at a non technical level so difficult or impossible to change in the short term.

Yes, if they insist on using .Net with little flexibility on that matter then they are narrowing their choices down a fair amount short of working on one from scratch or picking up with what pieces they have.

Whatever they choose it would seem smart though to do something cross-platform. With Apple making a stronger presence in the market of technology I think cross-platform becomes more of a consideration than it might have been three or four years ago.

3) That all the bits integrate. That is, the Monster builder, encounter and campaign manager, mapper and VTT are integrated suite.

Integration would certainly be more difficult if they tried to provide tools for one of the existing VTTs as an add-on. Though, take maptools for example. If they built a 4e framework that plugs into Maptools that was easy plug-in to maptools, was maintained and reliable that would be one good step. Then for adventures, provide maps that could be imported into maptools and provide pre-built tokens for critters in said modules that could get them pretty far.

Total integration would be more difficult though as you mentioned.

Then, I would buy a Python based VTT, assuming that there is no good .Net one out there. There might be, I have not found one but then I have not looked that hard.

So, why Python? well there are good Python implementations that are integrated with .NET and that should facilitate creation of the necessary components to allow the VTT to integrate with the rest of the Suite and the Character Builder. It is also less for the WoTC developers to learn since they can use their existing tools and can do the bulk of the work in the language they are most familar with, make used of interfaces and plugins to connect the bits together.

Valid points as well, certainly from the technical side of things. I'm not a dev, but aren't there Java tool options within .Net as well? Similar to some of the the Python options? (Actually a big fan of Python for sys admin scripting, so not trying to knock it - just curious about similar java tools for .Net).

What are the potential pitfalls? Well there are a few. I suspect that originally WoTC viewed the VTT and its integration in to the other tools as a product that they can charge a premium for. If they buy in that could be an issue with the fans since there would be an undoubted preception that WoTC is taking something that was free and now charging for it. As well as removing the perviously free content.

Yes, I think this is where the delay really hurt them. There are several good VTTs out there now that I can use free of charge. There are even community frameworks I can plug into the tools to run 4e games, 3.5 games, Pathfinder games, Savage World games, etc. With the capabilities of the core VTT tools and these community frameworks I really have nearly everyhing I need now in a VTT. So WotC has a lot to compete with in my opinion.

Areas of improvement would be ease of use and a large amount of integration if they were to tackle a VTT from the ground up.

Some of the free VTTs are open source and the developers might not sell for any price.

Yes, I actually would hate for WotC touch Maptools from any point. I don't think that is going to happen though as I suspect the devs of Maptools would resist.

I'd rather see WotC (and Paizo too for that matter) contribute a really solid framework to Maptools.

Another thing that has occured to me, now while I have had a look at a couple of the free VTTs I have not really used one in anger but the ones I have seen use tokens to show the locations of players, monsters etc. WoTC demos of their planned VTT showed 3d virtual minis, so that could be an issue also. They may feel obliged to deliver that also.

Correct, the ones I have used are all token based, nothing super fancy like 3d virtual minis or anything. To me this is not a major issue. Perhaps other value the eye candy or WotC sees that aspect as the feature that will trump the already established VTTs of today.

 

[Stoat]

Correct, the ones I have used are all token based, nothing super fancy like 3d virtual minis or anything. To me this is not a major issue. Perhaps other value the eye candy or WotC sees that aspect as the feature that will trump the already established VTTs of today.

From what I remember, WotC viewed the 3D nature of their VTT (and its dynamic lighting) as big selling points. I'm not sure how true that would be in practice.

2D tokens and maps are easy to create. If I want an adventure featuring goblin pirates, a quick GIS will give me goblin pirates to turn into tokens. I wouldn't be able to custom-make 3D images, and I doubt that WotC would be amenable to fan-made images anyway. I would expect to be restricted to using whatever 3D tokens WotC provided.

Further, IIRC, WotC was planning to charge extra for "virtual minis." I don't think they ever came up with a solid plan, but some of the ideas I saw floating around looked pretty unappealing (I'm thinking about the "random virtual mini booster pack" here). In other words, you'd pay for the VTT and then pay more for minis to use with the VTT.

In other words, it looked like WotC was going for a system that (a) would limit a fan's ability to make and use custom tokens and (b) would involve a series of micropayments in addition to a monthly payment. That's not real appealing to me, and I'm pretty sure it would not be real appealing to folks interested in gaming online.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I typically use Maptools which is Java based.

I know there is one out there using Python, which one is it? I can't recall.

OpenRPG

There is TTopRPG which uses .Net 3.5. I've played in one game with it. It didn't seem to have as many features as Maptools, but it certainly worked well enough and the developer seems quite willing to take input from people using the tool.

Thanks for the Link, as a .NET developer I have an interest in the topic. It is C++ and I wonder if it is all managed code. Must check it out some time.

Yes, if they insist on using .Net with little flexibility on that matter then they are narrowing their choices down a fair amount short of working on one from scratch or picking up with what pieces they have.

Whatever they choose it would seem smart though to do something cross-platform. With Apple making a stronger presence in the market of technology I think cross-platform becomes more of a consideration than it might have been three or four years ago.

agreed.

Integration would certainly be more difficult if they tried to provide tools for one of the existing VTTs as an add-on. Though, take maptools for example. If they built a 4e framework that plugs into Maptools that was easy plug-in to maptools, was maintained and reliable that would be one good step. Then for adventures, provide maps that could be imported into maptools and provide pre-built tokens for critters in said modules that could get them pretty far.

Total integration would be more difficult though as you mentioned.

Agreed on both counts.

Valid points as well, certainly from the technical side of things. I'm not a dev, but aren't there Java tool options within .Net as well? Similar to some of the the Python options? (Actually a big fan of Python for sys admin scripting, so not trying to knock it - just curious about similar java tools for .Net).

Not that I am aware of, I am pretty much .net focused but I have ran across a couple of Python frameworks that integrate with Visual Studio and I have heard of a Ruby one as well as a few other languanges but not Java.
I think that it could be that Java is sponsored by Sun now Oracle that is the source of the issue. Of course they can be made communicate using open protocols like SOAP and so forth.

snip...

Yes, I actually would hate for WotC touch Maptools from any point. I don't think that is going to happen though as I suspect the devs of Maptools would resist.

My point exactly

 

[IronWolf]

From what I remember, WotC viewed the 3D nature of their VTT (and its dynamic lighting) as big selling points. I'm not sure how true that would be in practice.

Maptools does dynamic lighting and vision blocking as does TTopRPG, so even some of the freely available VTTs have that covered now.

2D tokens and maps are easy to create. If I want an adventure featuring goblin pirates, a quick GIS will give me goblin pirates to turn into tokens. I wouldn't be able to custom-make 3D images, and I doubt that WotC would be amenable to fan-made images anyway. I would expect to be restricted to using whatever 3D tokens WotC provided.

Agreed. 2d tokens are so easy to create that the benefit outweighs any con of them not being 3d to me. There are also a wealth of 2d tokens already available for use and as you said, when there isn't you can just make one anyways in very little time. Being restricted to a 3D set WotC provided would not work for me when I have tools that don't restrict me.

Further, IIRC, WotC was planning to charge extra for "virtual minis." I don't think they ever came up with a solid plan, but some of the ideas I saw floating around looked pretty unappealing (I'm thinking about the "random virtual mini booster pack" here). In other words, you'd pay for the VTT and then pay more for minis to use with the VTT.

In other words, it looked like WotC was going for a system that (a) would limit a fan's ability to make and use custom tokens and (b) would involve a series of micropayments in addition to a monthly payment. That's not real appealing to me, and I'm pretty sure it would not be real appealing to folks interested in gaming online.

Definitely unappealing.

OpenRPG

Ah! That's the one. Thanks!

Thanks for the Link, as a .NET developer I have an interest in the topic. It is C++ and I wonder if it is all managed code. Must check it out some time.

The dev is pretty friendly, so if you have interest he might be worth talking to. I know he's sat in on some games simply to be available for comments, suggestions for improvements, etc. - which I thought was cool.

 

[guivre]

MapTool has no 's'.