D&D General Your Thoughts on LoS, Dynamic Lighting on VTTs

[Don Durito]

I don't know. I managed to get all of Barrowmaze on a single map level on Roll20 in 5 ft squares. That has around 360 rooms on one map. (Though, granted it's too large for dynamic lighting and I can just use basic fog of war.)

Well. Exactly! It's dynamic lighting which reduces viable map sizes.

 

[Don Durito]

I use FoW and DL when a fight is happening as it gives clear indication for what can be targeted by spells and how a character might want to hide.

But I generally don't show the dungeon map to my players. Like how many have said, it slows stuff down alot and any information that isn't visibly presented on the map is ignored by the players. Its also somewhat distracting and disengaging. I'll do it if something special is going on but otherwise, the map is for me and me alone as the DM.

This has been my process over the last year.

Tried the fancy map and lighting process. After many hiccups where players were presented with a blank screen we got it working.

After experimenting with it discovered the following:

• it became a hassle if for any reason not everyone could sit there and move their token to keep up with the party (i.e, their internet dropped, out they went to the toilet, there child demanded attention for the moment etc) then the token could suddenly be left behind with no connection to the rest of the party.
• It created an information gap in some combats. Sometimes players couldn't actually see what was happening with other characters who were not in their line of sight - and while this may have brought about an element of 'realism' it was disengaging.
• It couldn't handlle some things at all, such as for example where a corridor dips under another tunnel on the same level and they cross over.
• it stopped players asking questions about what they could see, and somewhat disrupted the natural pause of play upon entering a new room or location where the GM describes what there is to see.
• The above seemed to naturally lead to drift in two directions - either the map was so detailed that little description was needed - there was a token for a book case if there was a book case, if there was a chest it was on the map, or I needed to go minimalist to break the illusion that the map matched up with the fiction.
• Going for detail was largely a waste of my time, - I noticed that when I played online that whether dynamic lighting was used or not had bugger all impact on whether the game was fun or not. (Seriously, if the map was some beautifully painted thing or some scratched thing in Roll20 - it made no different except for a vague aesthetic appreciation of the map when it first appears).
• I tend to run sandboxes, so there was always going to be situations where I didn't have a map prepared so level of detail was going to be inconsistent anyway.
• When I went minimalist, dynamic lighting served a lot less purpose - it seems to be intended to make the map immersive - but I was trying for the opposite effect so I dropped it. (Plus in any case, in Roll20 at least dynamic lighting doesn't look and feel remotely real).

That said I would still use it for some things, but the traditional dungeon crawl where you enter one room at a time really doesn't need it. It's actually a lot simpler to just reveal the whole room with fog of war a bit at a time. And there are things you can do that are more immersive anyway - such as for example having an image of the room - so when the players enter you can blow it up and say "you see this".

I can see how if you are using an adventure path and all the maps are done for you, it may be fun. But in 20 years of gaming this is not really a feature I've ever felt was lacking and I really don't see how it's worth the time investment if you're making your own stuff.

 

[iserith]

For issues with people not being able to pay attention during an online game or who have spotty internet, terrible mic, or a slow computer, here's my solution: Don't invite them.

Sounds harsh, but ultimately, this format is not for every kind of player and in my view there's no use in trying to keep these players in the game if it's dragging the whole experience down with them.

I'm starting to think that the reason I'm not seeing all the problems being reported in this thread is because over time I've gotten rid of the real issue - players that fall into the aforementioned categories. From my perspective, the technology is just fine.

 

[Don Durito]

For issues with people not being able to pay attention during an online game or who have spotty internet, terrible mic, or a slow computer, here's my solution: Don't invite them.

Sounds harsh, but ultimately, this format is not for every kind of player and in my view there's no use in trying to keep these players in the game if it's dragging the whole experience down with them.

I'm starting to think that the reason I'm not seeing all the problems being reported in this thread is because over time I've gotten rid of the real issue - players that fall into the aforementioned categories. From my perspective, the technology is just fine.

Why would I ditch my friends for new players just so I could use a technology that I don't need and which wastes my time out of game?

What is so damn amazing about dynamic lighting?

 

[iserith]

Why would I ditch my friends for new players just so I could use a technology that I don't need and which wastes my time out of game?

What is so damn amazing about dynamic lighting?

I'm speaking about online play in general which includes but is not limited to dynamic lighting.

But I also did ditch most of my old group when I realized that I could build a much better D&D group online. An internet full of players means I don't have to settle. So I play other games with those friends instead.

 

[Don Durito]

Shrug. My players are great. I don't need new players.

 

[Scott Christian]

I use Roll20, but really have to say that I like what I see so far in PlayRole.

Role - Every story, every world, every version of you. (playrole.com)

It is a bit simpler, kind of like Google Apps vs Microsoft. I will say that I was able to create a custom character sheet without programming experience and it turned out functional. That is something I could not do with Roll20. The maps are easy as are the token and sizing. But, like I said, there are less dials and buttons than Roll20. Still, it shows a lot of promise to me. I like the keep it simple mantra.

 

[MNblockhead]

I use Roll20, but really have to say that I like what I see so far in PlayRole.

Role - Every story, every world, every version of you. (playrole.com)

It is a bit simpler, kind of like Google Apps vs Microsoft. I will say that I was able to create a custom character sheet without programming experience and it turned out functional. That is something I could not do with Roll20. The maps are easy as are the token and sizing. But, like I said, there are less dials and buttons than Roll20. Still, it shows a lot of promise to me. I like the keep it simple mantra.

I backed the Role Kickstarter campaign. It was an exception to my rule of the past few years not to back software on Kickstarter and I'm happy this one turned about to be a good project to back.

The beta has been really good for TotM and light-tactical play. It focuses firstly on audio-video and I've found it to be rock solid with me running games from the Mideast with players in the USA. Something that I struggle with when using other VoIP and VTT tools.

I do worry that featuritis will kill it. It is not meant to be a full VTT. I use Foundry for crunchy D&D sessions. I'd use role for most of anything else. Initially I was going to use it to run a Mage: The Ascension 20th Anniversary chronicle. I created custom charactersheet using the Role character sheet viewer and it worked well for the first session. I decided I needed to cut back on my GM responsibilities, so I didn't move forward with the Mage game, but I can see using Role for various one-shots. While I have access to Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Discord, and Zoom, I like the tight integration of dice rolling, asset sharing, basic battlemap and token features, and charactersheets into a clean interface that it intuitive and isn't as resource intensive as many of the battlemap-focused VTTs.

To tie it back to this thread's theme, Role does not support line of sight and lighting. If you are happy with basic battlemaps for encounters, do a lot of TotM, and care more about a solid audio/video experience over lots of map features, you should check out the Role beta.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I use Roll20, but really have to say that I like what I see so far in PlayRole.

Role - Every story, every world, every version of you. (playrole.com)

It is a bit simpler, kind of like Google Apps vs Microsoft. I will say that I was able to create a custom character sheet without programming experience and it turned out functional. That is something I could not do with Roll20. The maps are easy as are the token and sizing. But, like I said, there are less dials and buttons than Roll20. Still, it shows a lot of promise to me. I like the keep it simple mantra.

I backed the Role Kickstarter campaign. It was an exception to my rule of the past few years not to back software on Kickstarter and I'm happy this one turned about to be a good project to back.

The beta has been really good for TotM and light-tactical play. It focuses firstly on audio-video and I've found it to be rock solid with me running games from the Mideast with players in the USA. Something that I struggle with when using other VoIP and VTT tools.

I do worry that featuritis will kill it. It is not meant to be a full VTT. I use Foundry for crunchy D&D sessions. I'd use role for most of anything else. Initially I was going to use it to run a Mage: The Ascension 20th Anniversary chronicle. I created custom charactersheet using the Role character sheet viewer and it worked well for the first session. I decided I needed to cut back on my GM responsibilities, so I didn't move forward with the Mage game, but I can see using Role for various one-shots. While I have access to Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Discord, and Zoom, I like the tight integration of dice rolling, asset sharing, basic battlemap and token features, and charactersheets into a clean interface that it intuitive and isn't as resource intensive as many of the battlemap-focused VTTs.

To tie it back to this thread's theme, Role does not support line of sight and lighting. If you are happy with basic battlemaps for encounters, do a lot of TotM, and care more about a solid audio/video experience over lots of map features, you should check out the Role beta.

Thanks for the reviews. Hadn't heard of this before. Checked out the intro video and it seems like a nice back-to-basics approach.

Do they have pre-configured D&D character sheets? Can you roll dice from the sheets by clicking on an ability or weapon (like Roll20)?

 

[MNblockhead]

• it became a hassle if for any reason not everyone could sit there and move their token to keep up with the party (i.e, their internet dropped, out they went to the toilet, there child demanded attention for the moment etc) then the token could suddenly be left behind with no connection to the rest of the party.

As a DM, I've never found it particularly difficult to move a players token if things come up. Also, at least in Foundry, it is easy enough to switch or add another player to a Token's permissions so someone can take over someone else's character for a period of time.

• It created an information gap in some combats. Sometimes players couldn't actually see what was happening with other characters who were not in their line of sight - and while this may have brought about an element of 'realism' it was disengaging.

For me that's a feature, not a bug. One of the great things that dynamic lighting and line of sight adds to the game is that each player's view is limited by his or her character's vision and location. It can increase a sense of anxiety or panic in a battle. It brings the ghostwise halfling's telepathic communication ability to life and makes that feature really mean something in nearly every session. If other players want to say what they see, it must mean that their characters are vocalizing this, unless they are using magic. And when they do communicate, it's kinda cool when the elf says, looks like that long passage is clear, but the deep gnome replies, "wait, I think I see something moving at the far end of the hallway" because the gnome's darkvision is superior to the elf's.

• It couldn't handlle some things at all, such as for example where a corridor dips under another tunnel on the same level and they cross over.

Yeah, Foundry allows you to set elevation for walls, but that functionality is not yet used to deal with one tunnel going under another. Not sure if there are community mods that address this.

Another way you can handle this in Foundry is to have the characters teleport from right before the hallway dips under another to the point where it comes up on the other side of the higher-level tunnel. But that can be confusing to players, is fiddly to set up, and I don't see it as any better than to just have the wall end but explain to the players that it continues forward.

Another option is to draw the walls for both tunnels, so that you basically have a four lines where one tunnel goes below another. Then I just remove the appropriate walls based on from where they are approaching the area. If find this easy to prep and to handle in game.

• it stopped players asking questions about what they could see, and somewhat disrupted the natural pause of play upon entering a new room or location where the GM describes what there is to see.
• The above seemed to naturally lead to drift in two directions - either the map was so detailed that little description was needed - there was a token for a book case if there was a book case, if there was a chest it was on the map, or I needed to go minimalist to break the illusion that the map matched up with the fiction.

I don't find this to be much of a problem. The kinds of questions that players stop asking are mostly the kinds that I'm glad I don't have to constantly answer, such as ranges, room sizes, etc.

If the map is more abstracted, they'll quickly learn that they are not really seeing the area. It is just a map. If it is a highly detailed map, they'll tend to ask a lot of questions about the things they see on the map.

My players have learned to not just rush into rooms before I describe what they see. That is a very dangerous habit to have in Rappan Athuk! But if I'm playing with new players, I can just hit the space bar to pause so that they cannot move their tokens until I describe something, look something up, or when we are on break, etc.

• Going for detail was largely a waste of my time, - I noticed that when I played online that whether dynamic lighting was used or not had bugger all impact on whether the game was fun or not. (Seriously, if the map was some beautifully painted thing or some scratched thing in Roll20 - it made no different except for a vague aesthetic appreciation of the map when it first appears).

I can have fun with pure TotM, basic battlemap, or fully prepped maps with dynamic lighting. I find that dynamic lighting adds enough to the experience to make it worth prepping the map with walls, etc. But to each their own.

• I tend to run sandboxes, so there was always going to be situations where I didn't have a map prepared so level of detail was going to be inconsistent anyway.

And this is why it is important to me to have manual fog of war. Some VTTs just do not have good manual FOW reveal tools, which is why I stuck with Map Tool for so long. With the Foundry Simple Fog mod, I have an excellent manual FOW tool.

Throwing up a new map in Foundry is not as convenient as Map Tool or even Fantasy Ground, but I can have a map ready in under a minute if I have the images already saved saved with game. Otherwise if a large map, it may take a bit of time to upload it. It is still far faster than drawing things out on a Chessex battlemap or setting up terrain pieces.

• When I went minimalist, dynamic lighting served a lot less purpose - it seems to be intended to make the map immersive - but I was trying for the opposite effect so I dropped it. (Plus in any case, in Roll20 at least dynamic lighting doesn't look and feel remotely real).

For me, it is less about verisimilitude and more about automating some of the least fun mechanics for me to deal with as a DM. I like how it automatically determines what each character can see. I don't have to count squares on a map to explain whether something is in range. It makes lighting, vision, and line of sight important without adding to the information overhead the DM has to manage. I compare it to encumbrance. If we are playing pen & paper, we tend to handwave and guesstimate. I just isn't fun to track and calculate on paper (at least it isn't for us).

But with a digital character sheet, like D&D Beyond, the computer takes care of tracking weight. So you can make encumbrance matter without a lot of book keeping.

That said I would still use it for some things, but the traditional dungeon crawl where you enter one room at a time really doesn't need it. It's actually a lot simpler to just reveal the whole room with fog of war a bit at a time. And there are things you can do that are more immersive anyway - such as for example having an image of the room - so when the players enter you can blow it up and say "you see this".

I can see where you are coming from and I've done it this way. But I really like having large rooms and caverns with monsters hiding behind architectural or natural features. That harder to do with simpler fog of war reveal, unless you are also toggling the monster tokens to invisible mode until they jump out or a character moves by them. But that seems more fiddly than just using dynamic lighting.

I can see how if you are using an adventure path and all the maps are done for you, it may be fun. But in 20 years of gaming this is not really a feature I've ever felt was lacking and I really don't see how it's worth the time investment if you're making your own stuff.

Same. Never felt it was lacking, but now that it is available, I'm glad to use it.