1.2 and VTT [+]

[mamba]

Once you make a Mage token that can shoot a missile of light by either clicking a "Magic Missile" button, tagging the effect to deal 1d4+1 damage, or attaching a spell list to the token.... you are flirting with housing a video game engine.

This is flat out ridiculous, also, I still see no reason why they should be allowed to limit this

 

[MarkB]

That's the question. When does a VTT become a game engine?

The Foundry VTT suggested some clear distinctions. Both PCs and NPCs being controlled by humans, not programmed behaviour. Integration of die-rolling mechanics. The ability to implement non-predetermined solutions.

The thing is, there are already games out there that are some of both. Larian Studios' Divinity Original Sin II is primarily a computer RPG, but it has a custom DM storytelling mode that allows a human DM to run players through scenarios they build themselves, with all participants being controllable by the players and DM and dice-rolling mechanics to determine social and exploration outcomes.

Neverwinter Nights was designed from the ground up as a true hybrid, allowing for custom-building of adventure scenarios that could be built to be run with or without human DMs.

 

[mamba]

When does a VTT become a game engine?

Here is where I drew the line in my reply: Get rid of the VTT policy and include in the OGL (so you cannot change it, we do not trust you) that a VTT is any program in which the players control their characters and one player / the DM controls all other game relevant creatures (e.g. NPCs and enemies), while the computer itself controls none of them.

I know this overlaps with some game territory, but not with much, and that is the price you have to pay in order to take games away at all.

Alternatively, express in the OGL that you limit your VTT to the limitations of the VTT policy, and if your VTT offers any feature not in the policy, this implicitly makes that feature available to all other VTTs using the VTT policy.

 

[Minigiant]

The Foundry VTT suggested some clear distinctions. Both PCs and NPCs being controlled by humans, not programmed behaviour. Integration of die-rolling mechanics. The ability to implement non-predetermined solutions.

The thing is, there are already games out there that are some of both. Larian Studios' Divinity Original Sin II is primarily a computer RPG, but it has a custom DM storytelling mode that allows a human DM to run players through scenarios they build themselves, with all participants being controllable by the players and DM and dice-rolling mechanics to determine social and exploration outcomes.

Neverwinter Nights was designed from the ground up as a true hybrid, allowing for custom-building of adventure scenarios that could be built to be run with or without human DMs.

Here is where I drew the line in my reply: a VTT is any program in which the players control their characters and one player / the DM controls all other game relevant creatures (e.g. NPCs and enemies), while the computer itself controls none of them.

I know this overlaps with some game territory, but not with much, and that is the price you have to pay in order to take games away at all.

Hence the problem. There are video games with Human DMs. And game designers are making more and spending tons of money for the rights to use licensed rules and IP.

And the Video Game community believes that you need the RPG holder's permission to make and sell a video game with someone else's TTRPG rules.

So Foundry VTT's definition might not hold up in court.
We don't know the line between a good VTT and a basic video game.

 

[MarkB]

Here is where I drew the line in my reply: a VTT is any program in which the players control their characters and one player / the DM controls all other game relevant creatures (e.g. NPCs and enemies), while the computer itself controls none of them.

I know this overlaps with some game territory, but not with much, and that is the price you have to pay in order to take games away at all.

Alternatively, express in the OGL that you limit your VTT to the limitation of the VTT policy, and if your VTT offers any feature not in the policy, this implicitly makes that feature available to all other VTTs using the VTT policy.

It's a tricky distinction to make, because the lines can get very blurred. There are plenty of videogames out there which have no computer-controlled characters. Fortnite, Overwatch, any of their imitators.

Then there are asymmetric multiplayer games like Friday the 13th or Ghostbusters in which one person plays the monster while the others play cooperatively against them. That's a party-based mechanic right there.

 

[mamba]

Hence the problem

I do not care that there is overlap, I care that other VTTs are not hobbled. So far there could be VTTs and games, this gives them most games at least. If the point were to give WotC what they want, then why would I even bother filling out their survey.

 

[Minigiant]

I do not care that there is overlap, anything less is simply not acceptable and I will walk.

You might not care.

But Foundry could be sued into the ground.

 

[tetrasodium]

I was going to them as potential jury members. I think WOTC could managae to get a jury trail. And then it becomes a case of how much PI and IP is interpreted into in the VTT.

Because actually to te people I've asked, you'd need permission from WOTC once you lean from VTT to game engine.

That's the question. When does a VTT become a game engine?

What reason do you have to consider said "jury" qualified to know what VTTs have been doing for years? Do they have any experience with VTTs? If yes is that experience exclusively roll20?... If also yes did they know roll20 has been able to support regex or similar in preset ability rolls for years or did they just stop at rolling dice manually & adding values to the result manually?

You might not care.

But Foundry could be sued into the ground.

That's the obvious goal of the VTT section as written. The VTT section in 1.2 is so inept in its failure to understand current VTT capabilities (not just foundry) when it was drafted that there is nothing that remains coherent or salvageable from it.

 

[Clint_L]

[deleted - no point]

 

[mamba]

You might not care.

But Foundry could be sued into the ground.

I assume you are misunderstanding, I am on Foundry's side here. I say the current OGL 1.2 / VTT policy is not acceptable and they need to fix it.