Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="UngainlyTitan" data-source="post: 8853462" data-attributes="member: 28487">Upon further reflection and I am going to sound like the 4 Yorkshire men but the biggest issue to more graphically capable VTT is aesthetic expectation. By that I mean that the higher quality the tools the more the expectation that the map will match the capability of the tools. 40 years ago I played in a session where the map was drawn in the inside cardboard of a cigarette packet. I spent years playing on flip mats with maps drawn on the fly and now in FantasyGrounds with either professional maps or ones drawn using tools like Dungeondraft. I could in theory have a graphics pad attached to my PC and sketch out a map and import that for a random encounter but I do not because such a map will not match the aesthetic expectation I have set for myself (not including the group here because I have never discussed this with them).I noticed something similar on Critical Role, at the beginning Matt Mercer used traditional paper maps. They do not work that well for a streaming audience and he switched to 3d terrain. When he was using paper the gang arrived in a city and he outlined the places of interest and when they went somewhere and something happened he pulled out a map from a sheaf of about 20 he had prepared. When he switched to 3-d terrain there is less use of maps, and the maps are slightly generic.  A sewer, a street, a temple and so on where as before I suspect he would have drawn custom maps. Higher fidelity maps means more prep time and 3d maps will take a lot of prep for custom maps. So it is a good model to sell prefabricated adventures. Another possible long term benefit, in my mind, is that, by the time 3D VTT become mature they will enable augmented reality play at the table and telepresence play. Where the technology will enable something closely resembling real life at the table experience for groups that can only get together online.</blockquote>

Verification