D&D General Do you want a 3D vtt?

[Umbran]

I don't think that the folks who have been doing it for years have gotten VTTs to the point where people don't curse at the software every session.

I don't expect that WotC will suddenly do better. Historically, experts in UX they ain't.

Also, I am at best a casual computer gamer, meaning that my machine isn't exactly top notch. If I have to upgrade my laptop to use it, I ain't using it. While my players do use D&DB character sheets, we don't use a VTT playing in-person. I have two remote games I play in, one of which is not even D&D, the other I wouldn't expect to still be active when this comes out.

So, I don't see as I need the thing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I could be convinced and I think there might be benefits to 3D over 2D, but I'd really want something very simple, and it looks like WotC are headed very hard in the direction of glitzy and flashy rather than simple and effective, at some speed.

If it's not at least easier to use then current VTTs, then they've failed, frankly, because as Umbran says, even people who know what they're doing with the current ones tend to be rather vexed by them.

I don't expect that WotC will suddenly do better. Historically, experts in UX they ain't.

It would definitely be surprising if they did great here, but they have a lot of money, so maybe they hired someone competent to manage this? I mean I'm not saying I believe that but... it could happen??? Maybe? I dunno. I can't rule it out.

If I have to upgrade my laptop to use it, I ain't using it.

Yeah and this is another real issue.

Now, they are using UE5, which gives them a bit of edge here, because it's particularly good (I understand, but from a lot of good sources, like actual developers posting about it) at creating stuff that be exported to a bunch of platforms and deal with a lot of different performance situations.

Of course that's also going to create a massive disparity in how it looks/performs between those platforms. What they showed us is probably we'd get on a current-gen console, decent PC (with a Nvidia 20XX graphics card - or AMD equivalent - or better), or on a particularly high-end phone (using resolution scaling aggressively), which I suspect will be a minority of the platforms it's used on.

There's a gigantic question about voice and video, and whether WotC be handling that at all, or whether they should. If they want the seamless experience they seem to, they probably should, but Roll 20 and others have attempted it and it... didn't go great.

 

[JoeyD473]

It depends on what they do with it. If it is made simple and not just flashy with concentration on effects it could be ok.

Me personally, I probably won't use a 3D VTT. using a VTT like Roll20 is a lot of prep work, a 3D one is probably going to be a lot more prep time with little reward. I also am not a fan of the videogamification of TTRPG D&D. When I want to play a video game I play Baulders Gate

 

[Azzy]

So who the heck was asking for a 3-d VTT in the first place?

There's apparently enough people interested that several 3d vtts are in development.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

There's apparently enough people interested that several 3d vtts are in development.

Or enough companies who think people will be interested.

I'm sure there are actually people who want it, but I think the push has more to do with predictions about the natural development of technology, and a bet on something that if it works will be profitable, than on actual consumer demand. Tech is often driven by predictions about future demand not observed current demand.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Only way I’d use a VTT at all, tbf.

 

[Azzy]

Or enough companies who think people will be interested.

I'm sure there are actually people who want it, but I think the push has more to do with predictions about the natural development of technology, and a bet on something that if it works will be profitable, than on actual consumer demand. Tech is often driven by predictions about future demand not observed current demand.

That's true, too, but I think a bit of both is happening in this particular instance.

 

[Hussar]

So who the heck was asking for a 3-d VTT in the first place?

Raises Hand

Why wouldn't you? Roll 20 and Fantasy Grounds haven't substantially changed over what I was using fifteen years ago with Maptools or OpenRPG. Sure, the GUI is prettier, and the automation is better, but, fundamentally, there's nothing I can do on Fantasy Grounds, that I have sunk hundreds of dollars into, that I couldn't do on OpenRPG in 2002 programed in Python.

A 3d play environment similar to Virtual Gametable? That's easy to use and is tied into D&D Beyond? Gimme more of that.

Good grief, Dungeon Alchemist | AI Fantasy Game Mapmaking Software Dungeon Alchemist does nearly everything they're talking about (at a lower level, sure) and that was made by a couple of guys in their basement.

Most of the complaints that I'm seeing about this are from people who really have very limited experience with VTT play.

 

[MNblockhead]

I have to raise my eyebrows at the "who is asking for this" types of comments. We are talking about game geeks. There are people who sink great amounts of time and money into minis and physical terrain, costumes, luxury versions of adventures (Beadles and Grims), etc. VTTs are no different. The VTT itself is a hobby for many people. People put a great deal of time, and sometimes money, into foundry mods to run the game they want. I don't even think the 3D VTT has to be that easy to use to gain a sizable audience if it can provide tools for certain types of geeks to turn dungeon building into its own hobby.

Personally, as I said above, I'll likely only be attracted to it for official WotC content all fully prepped and, even then, only if they finally release a VTT that properly gets all the automations done right. If it does that and isn't too wonky to use in game, then I might even appreciate the 3D. Dealing with elevation in most current-generation VTTs is rather kludgy. Something that can represent actors on different levels in the 3D environment and flying could make running the game easier. If they get all this right AND have building tools that don't have too high of a learning curve--who knows, perhaps I would be convinced to use it to build my own encounters.

What makes me more skeptical, however, is that I need to see how they will handle fog of war, especially for large area exploration. The demos look like they could be nice for set-piece encounters, but I would like to see how they would handle, say, putting in the entire Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Which raises another potential concern: how are they going to price storage and how will performance be affected by large maps. One reason that I ditched Roll20 after testing it for several months is that even if I were willing to pay the highest subscription rate, I still didn't have enough storage for my current campaign. And a single-level map from the current mega dungeon I'm running would grind Roll20 to a halt.

So, I'm not very optimistic that WotC's VTT is going to be the correct tool to manage my entire campaign in and I don't see myself paying subscriptions for two VTTs (Foundry for most things and WotCs for set-piece combats). That leaves me with being cautiously optimistic at using it to run WotC official adventures, which will hopefully be built and well tested by professional developers and designers.

And who knows, if I ever get to run games in person again, I would happily go back to using the free Map Tool program with a horizontal display and minis. It is so much easier to run home-brew and sandboxy games in than any of the major VTTs--and much less expensive.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I have to raise my eyebrows at the "who is asking for this" types of comments. We are talking about game geeks. There are people who sink great amounts of time and money into minis and physical terrain, costumes, luxury versions of adventures (Beadles and Grims), etc. VTTs are no different. The VTT itself is a hobby for many people. People put a great deal of time, and sometimes money, into foundry mods to run the game they want. I don't even think the 3D VTT has to be that easy to use to gain a sizable audience if it can provide tools for certain types of geeks to turn dungeon building into its own hobby.

Personally, as I said above, I'll likely only be attracted to it for official WotC content all fully prepped and, even then, only if they finally release a VTT that properly gets all the automations done right. If it does that and isn't too wonky to use in game, then I might even appreciate the 3D. Dealing with elevation in most current-generation VTTs is rather kludgy. Something that can represent actors on different levels in the 3D environment and flying could make running the game easier. If they get all this right AND have building tools that don't have too high of a learning curve--who knows, perhaps I would be convinced to use it to build my own encounters.

What makes me more skeptical, however, is that I need to see how they will handle fog of war, especially for large area exploration. The demos look like they could be nice for set-piece encounters, but I would like to see how they would handle, say, putting in the entire Dungeon of the Mad Mage. Which raises another potential concern: how are they going to price storage and how will performance be affected by large maps. One reason that I ditched Roll20 after testing it for several months is that even if I were willing to pay the highest subscription rate, I still didn't have enough storage for my current campaign. And a single-level map from the current mega dungeon I'm running would grind Roll20 to a halt.

So, I'm not very optimistic that WotC's VTT is going to be the correct tool to manage my entire campaign in and I don't see myself paying subscriptions for two VTTs (Foundry for most things and WotCs for set-piece combats). That leaves me with being cautiously optimistic at using it to run WotC official adventures, which will hopefully be built and well tested by professional developers and designers.

And who knows, if I ever get to run games in person again, I would happily go back to using the free Map Tool program with a horizontal display and minis. It is so much easier to run home-brew and sandboxy games in than any of the major VTTs--and much less expensive.

Ideally visibility will work by the rules and reality. Players will be able to see what their token should see with a proper lighting engine.