I don't know about superior, but I think that in-person play lacks disadvantages that VTTs necessarily possess, largely with regards to the technological factors inherent in using them. While virtual play is clearly a boon for people who can't otherwise meet in-person, the reliance in internet connectivity opens up several new areas where things can go wrong (I know several people in rural areas, for instance, whose internet connection becomes spotty if it rains; one guy has his connection lag severely if anyone else in his house runs the microwave), etc.
And that's before the point about "the medium becomes the message," which strikes me as a legitimate factor to be concerned about. VTTs aren't the same as video games, so I don't think they can necessarily be compared to something like Dragon Age or League of Legends, but there's something to be said for an immersive virtual environment (i.e. a more elaborate, graphically-intensive VTT) creating a sense of limitations because certain aspects of PC interaction with the game world are programmed to be supported and others aren't. That the type of play sets expectations is something which goes back much further than VTTs, where RPGs are concerned, but they have the potential to inadvertently create new barriers in that regard without meaning to.
There's also the issue of micro-transactions and shifted corporate focus as well. A greater pivot to digital assets likely (albeit not conclusively) means a reduced emphasis on game mechanics and lore/worldbuilding, which means less material for people who like that. That certainly constitutes a legitimate reason to be concerned with the direction which 1D&D is going, and I thought the video did a good job covering most of those points.
EDIT: Forgot to talk about the issue of third-party products potentially being harder to integrate into a VTT also.
I thought the bias against VTTs -- and a belief that in-person TotM was inherently superior and
how awful it would be if new players lose it is the theme that ran throughout his video.
The idea that people are limited by interacting with a more elaborately realized environment thereby creates
invisible chains is not necessarily wrong. But the impact of it is exaggerated and elevated as the reason to objecting to a mode of play he does not prefer. To be clear though -- if I was stuck playing only on Roll20? I wouldn't prefer it either. But that's because the visual fidelity and options I want aren't available on that platform.
I'm older. I have an elaborate and expensive PC designed for playing RPGs online. I have other uses for it, sure, but make no mistake -- that purpose was the primary use I designed it for. Six of my eight players share this same approach to their own PC environments. We are middle aged men, have a disposable income, and this is our hobby.
While it is commonplace to hear that gamers care mostly about gameplay and not about eye candy, the retail test over a course of 45+ years selling entertainment software and electronic games is that more and better eye & ear candy sells best, all else being equal. And usually when it isn't equal, too. In this, I note that what people say does not match
what people actually do.
There is another theme which has emerged in this thread, (not necessarily in your response, so I apologize for that) that making people pay for electronic cosmetics is silly, limiting, or -- dare I say it -- an unwelcome innovation.
No it isn't. It is entirely legitimate. This is a case of not thinking matters through.
I have more than 8,000+ minis in 2 large steel storage cabinets. Call it 600 or so pewter minis, another 1,200 Bones and the rest of them pre-paints from WotC, Wizkids et al. It's a VAST collection and it cost a
stupid amount of money. (My wife might have mentioned that, once or twice
).
How often do I use these now after having gone completely virtual? Rarely since 2011 - and not at all since 2014. HOWEVER, I haven't spent a nickel on minis, paints, bases, glues or flock since then, too. But I do pay for a monthly subscription to Photoshop, I buy Dungeondraft, and subscribe to a number of patreons for digital artists to purchase tokens, digital maps, and textures.
It's still buying brushes, paint, battlemats and minis and terrain -- just in a different form.
My point: when you move to electronic remote gaming via VTT, the ability to accessorize in a manner than pre-dates D&D itself is lost. This game started from miniature use, not the other way around. And VTT play necessarily removes those physical minis at a stroke. If what we are left with is another market to buy the same thing we have been buying from Ral Partha, RAFM, Grenadier Citadel et al ---> all the way to the latest Reaper Bones set and STLs printed on the newest and latest 3d printer? We'll likely be just fine with that approach, thanks.
All of that merchandising goes out the window with digital VTT play. So the idea that people will spend $$ on "microtransactions" for digital icons is somehow heresy or "exploits new ground in an offensive manner" ignores the vast money spent on minis in this hobby in years and decades past.
We'll be fine. The hobby will survive quite nicely a player who wants a spiffy digital mini with an animated flaming sword, just as the hobby survives a player buying a mini which matches his PC, paints it up and brings it to the table for use during play.
It's no different. At all.
Claims the sky is falling because people will spend money on cosmetics, as if they have not been doing this for 50 years already, is nonsense. What's really going on is that the particular cosmetics virtual play contemplates are not the cosmetics they are used to paying for when they play D&D, so it's BadWrongFun.
