Project Sigil All the Deets on Project Sigil the D&D 3D Virtual Tabletop

• Danger in Dunbarrow is the adventure designed to introduced the 3D tabletop.
• Bring in any character from D&D Beyond.
• 'Mini Maker' lets you design digital miniatures.
• Assets designed to feel like buying a high-end mini or figure somewhere between painted and realistic.
• Plug in locations like graveyard, mine, town each with a premade story you can use or ignore.
• "Modding games more than making them whole cloth."
• The Level Builder is like 'the best miniatures set that you could have'. Snap together different kit pieces.
• Secret doors, traps, lifts that go up and down.
• Also use 2D tokens with artwork you have.
• Also use 2D maps.
• You can play other games with it, not just D&D.
• Have Drizzt fight Optimus Prime.
• Share content with others.
• Starting on PC, other platforms later including mobile and console.
• Will be available to try out for free.
• Closed beta coming this fall for those with a DDB account.
• Pre-order 2024 physical and digital core rulebook bundle to get a free digital gold dragon mini to 'kickstarter your Project Sigil collection'.

 

[TiQuinn]

It might be interesting to see D&D become a hybrid of Baldur's Gate (fantasy gameplay) + Fortnite (pay-to-win microtransactions).

Why wouldn’t they just release a new separate game under the D&D brand that has this and keep TTRPG D&D as-is?

 

[Hussar]

This remains to be seen. It would trivially easy within the software to limit each instance of a mini to any arbitrary number at a time. Maybe the “common orc barbarian” mini lets you deploy three copies on the same map a simultaneously, but the “rare orc wizard” mini can only be used one at a time. If you want more, you would have to buy extra copies. This is easily possible.

But why would WotC decide to impose arbitrary restrictions on digital assets? Greed. The only reasons to say “this makes no sense” is lack of imagination about how greedy a monopoly could be.

Do people actually think this is a valid concern? Seriously?

 

[Oofta]

This remains to be seen. It would trivially easy within the software to limit each instance of a mini to any arbitrary number at a time. Maybe the “common orc barbarian” mini lets you deploy three copies on the same map a simultaneously, but the “rare orc wizard” mini can only be used one at a time. If you want more, you would have to buy extra copies. This is easily possible.

But why would WotC decide to impose arbitrary restrictions on digital assets? Greed. The only reasons to say “this makes no sense” is lack of imagination about how greedy a monopoly could be.

It's not going to be a monopoly and they've shown that you can import 2D tokens if you don't have a particular monster. There's no reason to think they'll limit you to one version of a fig, no other VTT in existence does that.

 

[Oofta]

Do people actually think this is a valid concern? Seriously?

People always look for the worst possible thing they could do because it's WotC. Even when it's nonsensical.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It might be interesting to see D&D become a hybrid of Baldur's Gate (fantasy gameplay) + Fortnite (pay-to-win microtransactions). If Hasbro's determined to monetize the IP, that's a strong solution. A lot starts to link-up: the attempted new OGL, the facetime with Larian, bringing in Hight from WoW (which is a pay-to-win game). We just can't help but see what's coming here.

Ok, How does "Pay to win" D&D work? Do not just point at BG 3 and Fortnite and say "Pay to win" that tells me nothing because both of those are computer games. The play loop is controlled by code and a cpu, and pay to win can be embedded into the code.
How, in a game of D&D with a DM and players does one "Pay to win"? Buy the DM more pizza? single Malt Scotch?

 

[Hussar]

Sure, I could see them tightening up the "sharing books" stuff. Maybe. Then again, if you need a particular level of sub to use the VTT, maybe they could simply have a tier of sub where you are paying to access the VTT.

I look at Fantasy Grounds, for example. I have an ultimate license, so, I can share whatever I own while the game table is running. And the players do not need to pay to play in my game, since I can host free version players. But, if you want your own books, you need to buy the standard license (I think - I might be wrong here).

So, I could see something like that going on. It depends on how integrated D&D Beyond is going to be with the Sigil. If it's sort of one stop shop - the DM has a master level sub and everyone can access those books, with an additional cost for having whatever sub for hosting Sigil games - it might not be too terribly different than the way Roll 20 or Fantasy Grounds already works.

Then again, maybe some players could actually pry open their wallets once in a while and pony up and help the DM out. That might be a nice thing to happen once in a while.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why wouldn’t they just release a new separate game under the D&D brand that has this and keep TTRPG D&D as-is?

I've been wanting them to do that since they released 4e.

 

[Umbran]

But why would WotC decide to impose arbitrary restrictions on digital assets? Greed. The only reasons to say “this makes no sense” is lack of imagination about how greedy a monopoly could be.

WotC is the big fish in the pond, but it isn't a monopoly at this time. The sheer number of non-WotC games and VTTs kind of flies in the face of the idea of monopoly. We are seeing TTRPG projects with revenues of $10 million and more, for goodness sake!

 

[Zaukrie]

Why wouldn’t they just release a new separate game under the D&D brand that has this and keep TTRPG D&D as-is?

Why would they?

 

[Dire Bare]

Why wouldn’t they just release a new separate game under the D&D brand that has this and keep TTRPG D&D as-is?

Huh? Project Sigil is a VTT for D&D. Why would this be a "separate game"??