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

[MNblockhead]

Except I can take any decent top-down battlemap that I find on the internet, plop some simple tokens to it and call it a day with a 2D VTT. I don't always do complicated spell animations or dynamic lighting.

But you can't have the equivalent of "just plop a .jpg from /r/battlemaps" with a 3D VTT. You either get a premade map that perfectly includes everything (which would be pretty good for APs, admittedly), or you need to design the whole 3D space from scratch, essentially becoming a level designer.

Eventually there will be a huge amount of pre-made 3D battlemaps. There is already a lot of content for 3D assets for Foundry w/ 3D canvas.

My issue with 3D Canvas + Foundry isn't finding battlemaps, it just having to setup and manage the modules is Wonky and subject to breaking whenever Foundry is updated. The creator of 3D Canvas is well funded via his Patreon, so I'm not worried about it being abandoned in the near future, but it does take more effort than many will want to deal with. At this point, I'm just tinkering, I'm not sure I want to bother with the extra effort to actually make it a main tool when running my games. Maybe a rare set piece battle.

The advantage of a platform built as a 3D platform is that you won't have to deal with any of that. In which case you only need to be able to get access to 3D assets. If there is a platform that attracts a lot of users, then creators are going to create for it.

 

[MNblockhead]

Please elaborate. I can't fathom any situation in which 3D is easier than 2D. More accurate yes, easier? No. And I spent decades doing 3D MCAD design.

As for vaporware, yes it is. Every software project is vaporware, until it isn't.

Imagine a menu of drag and drop terrain objects. Lighting effects, line of sight, etc. are already backed into the objects. You build but dropping objects onto the canvas.

That would be easier and much quicker than loading a battlemap image, sizing it, matching it to a grid, and drawing in the walls, etc.

Of course there are drag and drop 2D tile sets that allow similar building in 2D vtts, but I don't think 3D would be any more difficult.

Where 3D gets more complicated is building objects from scratch. At least with my experience with 3D Canvas for Foundry. There are just more settings to fiddle about with to build a 3D tile than there is for a 2D tile. But if working from precreated tile packs, 3D needn't be any more complicated than 2D.

 

[Zaukrie]

Eventually there will be a huge amount of pre-made 3D battlemaps. There is already a lot of content for 3D assets for Foundry w/ 3D canvas.

My issue with 3D Canvas + Foundry isn't finding battlemaps, it just having to setup and manage the modules is Wonky and subject to breaking whenever Foundry is updated. The creator of 3D Canvas is well funded via his Patreon, so I'm not worried about it being abandoned in the near future, but it does take more effort than many will want to deal with. At this point, I'm just tinkering, I'm not sure I want to bother with the extra effort to actually make it a main tool when running my games. Maybe a rare set piece battle.

The advantage of a platform built as a 3D platform is that you won't have to deal with any of that. In which case you only need to be able to get access to 3D assets. If there is a platform that attracts a lot of users, then creators are going to create for it.

I just installed 3d canvas, and plan to test it this week. I may have questions.....

 

[Malmuria]

Imagine a menu of drag and drop terrain objects. Lighting effects, line of sight, etc. are already backed into the objects. You build but dropping objects onto the canvas.

That would be easier and much quicker than loading a battlemap image, sizing it, matching it to a grid, and drawing in the walls, etc.

Of course there are drag and drop 2D tile sets that allow similar building in 2D vtts, but I don't think 3D would be any more difficult.

Where 3D gets more complicated is building objects from scratch. At least with my experience with 3D Canvas for Foundry. There are just more settings to fiddle about with to build a 3D tile than there is for a 2D tile. But if working from precreated tile packs, 3D needn't be any more complicated than 2D.

I feel like the system reqs will be much higher doing all that in 3d? And/or will tax internet connection speeds

 

[MNblockhead]

I feel like the system reqs will be much higher doing all that in 3d? And/or will tax internet connection speeds

Yes, that is my main concern. Not so much the system reqs as I think my laptop should be up to the task, besides, most of the heavy lifting will be server side. But my Internet connection overseas is not always the greatest.

 

[Clint_L]

Eventually there will be a huge amount of pre-made 3D battlemaps. There is already a lot of content for 3D assets for Foundry w/ 3D canvas.

My issue with 3D Canvas + Foundry isn't finding battlemaps, it just having to setup and manage the modules is Wonky and subject to breaking whenever Foundry is updated. The creator of 3D Canvas is well funded via his Patreon, so I'm not worried about it being abandoned in the near future, but it does take more effort than many will want to deal with. At this point, I'm just tinkering, I'm not sure I want to bother with the extra effort to actually make it a main tool when running my games. Maybe a rare set piece battle.

The advantage of a platform built as a 3D platform is that you won't have to deal with any of that. In which case you only need to be able to get access to 3D assets. If there is a platform that attracts a lot of users, then creators are going to create for it.

Yeah, for it to really take off and integrate with a lot of campaigns via DDB I think whatever WotC comes up with has to be simple and intuitive to use. Foundry and 3d Canvas look cool but way too complicated for technology idiots like me.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I feel like the system reqs will be much higher doing all that in 3d? And/or will tax internet connection speeds

A bunch of 3D terrain and models honestly does not sound that system intensive on most video games.

 

[glass]

Imagine a menu of drag and drop terrain objects. Lighting effects, line of sight, etc. are already backed into the objects. You build but dropping objects onto the canvas.

I don't have to imagine it. I have used various BIM packages that work pretty much exactly like that, and modelling buildings and terrain is exactly what they do. Despite their doing everything they can to simplify the process (which is why they cost far more than would be viable for a gaming subscription - thousands per year), it still get complicated fast.

 

[Mecheon]

Y'know, just on 3d stuff, NWN got updated to allow illumination maps recently. Also someone took the Umber Hulk model from NWN 2 and I've been mucking about with it in the original game

I think it looks neat, for a 20-something year old game. anywho this remains why I just want NWN 3, which is just NWN 1 except with jumping, climbing, swimming, riding, and all those other bits and bobs we had to come up with all sorts of weird work-arounds for

 

[Oofta]

A lot of whether or not WOTC's VTT works comes down to design goals and implementation. Which, I know, duh. But a lot of the biggest hassle of drawing maps was adding in the "extras" like lighting, line of site, integrating with DDB, creating icons for monsters and so on.

But imagine if a lot of the work is done for you? They have a catalogue of scenes you can choose from, blocking line of sight is as simple as dropping in a wall, integration with DDB and all the animation you want is right there. When you drop a light source, it just works, you don't have to futz around with finding the right icon and then adding light parameters. Want a city street? Would that be the city Waterdeep or the village of Barovia? Maybe there's an add-on-pack for an Eberron train and of course there' plenty of ancient tombs and abandoned structures as well.

Some of the features will be dreaded "micro transactions" aka buying pre-built scenes, which honestly I would have been okay with. But they have an advantage of sorts. They don't have to support every genre or game under the sun, they just have to support D&D. Start with scenes that they're building for modules and let me buy just specific buildings would be awesome.

One last comment on the "THE VTT IS DOOMED!" video. I didn't bother watching the whole thing but one of the things that they pushed was that you will absolutely need a high end PC with a graphics card because they're required for AAA video games. I think that's bunk. They don't need to support anything near the graphical responsiveness you need with a video game. You aren't going to have anything near the amount of simultaneous calculations and the constant responses to movement that you need for a video game. Beyond the occasional fire or spell effect, this is going to be a pretty static isometric view (likely with the option to change view), which will require a fraction of what any modern video game has. You could also have downgrades in textures and models for lower end machines.

All of this is speculation of course. I just think the conjecture that it's automatically guaranteed to fail is premature.