D&D (2024) I am highly skeptical of the Unreal VTT

[dave2008]

Not skeptical that it will come out, but skeptical that it is a good way to play D&D. I honestly believe that the fancier the VTT, the more it detracts from anything not combat, and makes it harder to run things on the fly or even homebrew prepped.

Thoughts?

A long time ago (20+ years) we used the early unreal / doom engine to create realtime 3D spaces for an architecture class. As a DM I could see its potential for D&D back then. I think this could be amazing, it all comes down to the execution and ease of use.

 

[wedgeski]

@Ruin Explorer is right to be skeptical but they have taken an extreme position that perhaps isn't justified given where we are today.

I'm in the business and while I can see the complexities of a VTT as they pertain to a AAA game, I think there's a good chance that in two years we'll see an alpha that looks pretty much like what was briefly shown in the preview. All my uncertainties lie in the area of content creation after the engine/rules integration are in place.

he decision to use UE5 means they're not going to have access to a bunch of pre-developed stuff (not for a few years yet). They're going to have to develop virtually everything for themselves - networking, UI, however it accesses the rules (and that cannot just be the current Beyond, because it is nowhere near up to the task), all the management of turns and initiative, and so on

? This is a strange position, isn't it? UE5 will give them the fundamental networking model and UI layer, access to a bunch of developers who have experience with it or its predessors, and I don't really know where your conviction about quality of the DNDB data model comes from. It seems sound to me after using it for a few years. A turn-based framework is tons easier than a real-time interface, I'll take that any day of the week.

IMO you can afford to be a little more optimistic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Is it more complex than Roll20...sure, as complex as Neverwinter Nights... not even close.

I honestly don't think you know anything about either product given this comparison, so I'm not sure how to engage with this.

But they only have to make 1-10 models for tiny, small, medium and large humanoids and then re-skin. And they already have some of the models as evidenced by the in-game footage they showed.

I mean, no? They're going to have to a lot more than "re-skin humanoids". And no, I don't believe any of those were models that can be used in-game.

They were also pretty clear they'd have a robust character builder, then showed three models no character builder in history could create.

You're assuming this VTT will be running the game for you and that's not the impression I got from what they showed. It might eventually get there but integration with D&D Beyond to start could be as simple as allowing you to roll dice that add modifiers... beyond simple integration and we are getting into the realm of your expectations for what it will be as opposed to exactly what they said and yes, they may not meet those..

No? I'm not assuming that.

I'm assuming it'll be more automated than Roll 20, because what they showed and talked about was more automated than Roll 20. You're describing a scenario less automated than Roll 20.

I think if you knew what people have done with UE5 in the short time it's been available (with videogames and cinema) you might not think that.

I do know. But the difference is that those are professional developers who are simply making cinematic experiences that don't do anything else, with mostly pre-built assets and playing around with the lighting and physics engines to make things look more cinematic or even photorealistic (there's a guy in Japan doing some amazing stuff with set building). If you think that making a functional, rules-integrated VTT that beats existing VTTs on usability is anywhere near comparable to that, well, it's not.

I think they already have a grasp on how to create the models and skins for it (again as shown by the pre-alpha in-game footage) and if that's pre-alpha they will probably polish it even more.

So I don't believe that, because as I said, they said they'd have a character builder, then showed us three models no character builder could ever build.

If they keep scope creep to a minimum and aim to bring the basics first on a strong foundation this will probably be ready in 2 years time.

Like I said, you're being extremely optimistic.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Your rhetoric on this is way over the top and doing your case no favours. I mean, sure if WoTC is approaching with all the incompetence you are suggesting then ok it will be a disaster but you have no more insider knowledge than the rest of us, do you?

You're assuming it's even is in active development! Which is a hell of an assumption!

Why?

I don't think there's any reason to believe that. I strongly suspect, based on the information we have, it's actually in pre-production, the phase before active development. Software and games often spend months or even years in pre-production.

Again why? clearly they have been planning the rest of it for some years so why not the VTT.

Unreal Engine 5 has only been available since April 5th. So, at most, assuming they hit the ground running, with experienced Unreal developers (which I haven't seen any evidence they have, though I obviously can't prove they don't), they've been developing since then, which is what, 3 months?

So, this does not need Unreal engine, not right now. The graphic quality is not what will cause this application to live or die. If the models are pretty, for sufficient value of pretty and the terrain is not too shabby, it will do. You do not need, animation or dynamic lightning or shadowing (in the gaming sense, not VTT sense). The VTT will live or die on the efficiency of networking code and the ease of creation of maps. Which the main source of my scepticism.
In my opinion a VTT needs ease of setting up maps, some fog of war (optional) and ideally some good campaign management tools and most of all. Seamless networking, glitching in the networking, desynchronization, failure to connect with the DM will all kill a VTT irrespective of all other bell and whistles.
If this project fails it will be because the 3 terrain management is too much work for the DMs. Pre-fabbed APs are all very well but you have to support the home brewer and the campaign that goes off piste.
However, that said I am pretty sure everything is deliverable expect, possibly the map making and tile management.

That would assume pre-production happened much earlier. But that's undermined, pretty harshly, by the messaging they've put out. Specifically, as of the CGI bullshot trailer they released a few days ago, they were still talking about the business model and how exactly the VTT will work speculatively, rather than factually.

That suggests the basic design is not finished. That suggests they're in pre-production. Which would make sense, because of the timing of everything involved. They only just bought Beyond on the 13th of April. So that actually pushes the timeline along - they couldn't realistically have started development before that, and more realistically, they'd take time to look at the Beyond database, to see what the Beyond people had achieved with their attempt at a VTT (which seems, like all Beyond projects, to have gone exactly nowhere, I admit), and so on. So probably we're into June before they've even finished looking at that and onboarding Beyond people and so on.

So I think it's most likely they haven't even started actual development. They're doing pre-production stuff and trying to work out their business model - that'll have a huuuuuuuuuuge impact on how they design the VTT.

That is pure speculation.

Which makes the belief that they'll have this ready by 2024 even more wild.

Not for final release, there I agree, at best we will see Early Access/Beta but that should be doable.

People won't mind if it's December 31 2024, people are used to that. But the odds of it even being in a playable, non-alpha form by any point in 2024? Very low (unless they do a 2D and no-business-model version). It would be truly shocking if they managed that, given they're using the UE5 engine, and don't seem to have an experienced dev studio working on the product.

Will there be a beta in 2024, I do not know but your speculation about the dev team is exactly that. Speculation, you do not know and neither do I. WoTC/Hasbro has the resources to hire such a team but even with the best will in the world software is a tricky business.
What I do expect is that WoTC will stick with it, irrespective of what happens in 2024. And it will never be a 2d VTT.

I think that once D&DBeyond became workable and 5e successful beyond expectations they have been eying the opportunity to resurrect Gleemax. I also think that they are looking at developments in VR/AR and thinking beyond 2024 when the tech will be cheap and good enough for retail consumers and betting that this is where online VTT play is going. Hence the 3d VTT.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't really know where your conviction about quality of the DNDB data model comes from.

From the DDB developers and their constant complaints about the data model and endlessly using as a reason why they couldn't do things. For example, they hold that the data model prevents them from doing Supernatural Gifts, Dark Gifts, Piety or other stuff. That's not me saying that, that's them. They've also used as an excuse for basically everything they don't have.

So, this does not need Unreal engine, not right now. The graphic quality is not what will cause this application to live or die. If the models are pretty, for sufficient value of pretty and the terrain is not too shabby, it will do. You do not need, animation or dynamic lightning or shadowing (in the gaming sense, not VTT sense). The VTT will live or die on the efficiency of networking code and the ease of creation of maps. Which the main source of my scepticism.
In my opinion a VTT needs ease of setting up maps, some fog of war (optional) and ideally some good campaign management tools and most of all. Seamless networking, glitching in the networking, desynchronization, failure to connect with the DM will all kill a VTT irrespective of all other bell and whistles.
If this project fails it will be because the 3 terrain management is too much work for the DMs. Pre-fabbed APs are all very well but you have to support the home brewer and the campaign that goes off piste.
However, that said I am pretty sure everything is deliverable expect, possibly the map making and tile management.

The problem here is that WotC clearly doesn't agree with you based on their statements and what they've been showing.

I do agree with as to what's important, but WotC does not. Them selecting the UE5 engine, going for ultra-high-res models with fancy lighting/post-processing and so on tells us very clearly what their priorities are, and they're not "getting a basic VTT working with super-easy map creation and strong fog-of-war control" (which I agree is the right way to go).

Again why? clearly they have been planning the rest of it for some years so why not the VTT.

Because they can't have planned for "some years" an engine that came out on April 5th, and a acquisition they only made on April 13th. It's not complicated lol.

Why?

Because nothing they've shown or said suggests this is in active development, and multiple things suggest it isn't. Your question was answered by the post you're quoting from.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

From the DDB developers and their constant complaints about the data model and endlessly using as a reason why they couldn't do things. For example, they hold that the data model prevents them from doing Supernatural Gifts, Dark Gifts, Piety or other stuff. That's not me saying that, that's them. They've also used as an excuse for basically everything they don't have.

D&DBeyond dev's have always struck me as labouring wider 2 problems. They never knew what WoTC designers was going to throw at them, their architecture was not good at handling this without warning and they were under resourced to keep up. Many factors should change though if they still cannot keep up in a years time or so...

The problem here is that WotC clearly doesn't agree with you based on their statements and what they've been showing.

What they say does not support your interpretation either. They say actually very little, the bloke that introduces the Digital D&D claims that "it is in early development" and that "they can move minis and roll dice in a digital play space" then a bloke talks about choosing the Unreal engine because it "makes the game look dope" and he talks about the lazy DM and tooling needed for DMs. He then goes on about "tilt shift camera" and how it make it looks less like a game and more like a minis set. It segues into another bloke who also re-iterates the point about it being a minis set and not a video game and back to talk about DM tooling, being able to take apart prefabbed sets and reuse them.

I do notice (and did the first time also) no one says anything about when all of this is going to be released. The whole presentation is less than 2 minutes before it cuts to Chris Perkins telling us about the playtest.

I do agree with as to what's important, but WotC does not. Them selecting the UE5 engine, going for ultra-high-res models with fancy lighting/post-processing and so on tells us very clearly what their priorities are, and they're not "getting a basic VTT working with super-easy map creation and strong fog-of-war control" (which I agree is the right way to go).

Because they can't have planned for "some years" an engine that came out on April 5th, and a acquisition they only made on April 13th. It's not complicated lol.

So what is it about the Unreal 5 engine that is so different to the Unreal 4 engine that they could not have done some prototyping and architectural studies on it? It is not like Epic just plopped Unreal 5 out there with no advance notice.

Because nothing they've shown or said suggests this is in active development, and multiple things suggest it isn't. Your question was answered by the post you're quoting from.

They did say very clearly that they can "move minis and roll dice"

Spoiler

Start at 4:10 I do not know how to set it up to auto start at the correct time.

Edited: For clarity and spelling. Though I will not offer any guarantees on spelling.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”

 

[payn]

Some day somebody is going to necro this thread and say, “See? I told you.”

annnnnnd now I got Wilson Philips stuck in my head...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Like I am getting the impression here that we have a bunch of grumpy people who don't want new fangled things they are not used to like D&D Beyond and a 3d tabletop coming into what they are not used to. Like I am amazed how many people are so resistant to Beyond.

I like to own things I pay for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Those are exactly the concerns I have heard. We had someone outright say "I'm sick of change"

Is there a rule that D&D fans are required to just go along with any change the IP holder decides to make? There's nothing wrong with getting off the train when you're happy with the stop you're at.