Have you played with the DDI VT?

[Scribble]

Unfortunately, they're about the miss the boat. Google+ Hangouts seem to be on the verge of offering that very option, and doing it rather better. And, with the resources of a much larger company behind them, G+ will improve much faster than WotC can. WotC really need to get this tool up and working, or they're going to find themselves with another costly write-off.

Eh maybe... I still think though if they get it running, it has the advantage of being housed on the D&D website. IE the place people probably go when they first get the game.

 

[Dannager]

I think Dannager's dismissal of Maptools benefits as simply being 'flexibility with systems and house rules' is unfair - the benefit is that it allows a much, much larger level of investment in automation/details/etc.

And that's the issue - you can invest in that ability to trick your game out with automation, but it's a substantial investment in terms of time and a certain level of mastery of the program. I believe that a lot of the people looking to play D&D online are doing so because it's already prohibitively difficult for them to coordinate a face-to-face game, so they're not going to be looking for something with a high barrier to playability.

I mean, the ideal when it comes to the D&D VTT would be to open the app, have your players log on, and then literally load up an adventure - maps, monsters, traps, and all - while the players load up their characters. Contrary to most aspects of playing D&D online - where the goal is to do what you can to mitigate the inevitable increase in time needed to play - the ability to simply load an adventure would actually decrease the amount of time needed to play by removing the need to draw or set up maps, or the need to flip through books for monsters and traps.

 

[Shemeska]

I'm with you - I don't know why WotC didn't just use MapTool and integrate it with their DDI tools. Of course, I'm not a programmer, so I don't know how feasible that would have been.

That's sort of what they did (going with an already extant program). Their VT was purchased from an outside company (which they'd worked with previously on some games which would have been part of Gleemax), which was then modified to an extent to fit WotC's specs. The current VT is wholly distinct from the original, 3d model VT they broke the bank on a few years ago.

 

[MrMyth]

And that's the issue - you can invest in that ability to trick your game out with automation, but it's a substantial investment in terms of time and a certain level of mastery of the program. I believe that a lot of the people looking to play D&D online are doing so because it's already prohibitively difficult for them to coordinate a face-to-face game, so they're not going to be looking for something with a high barrier to playability.

I mean, the ideal when it comes to the D&D VTT would be to open the app, have your players log on, and then literally load up an adventure - maps, monsters, traps, and all - while the players load up their characters. Contrary to most aspects of playing D&D online - where the goal is to do what you can to mitigate the inevitable increase in time needed to play - the ability to simply load an adventure would actually decrease the amount of time needed to play by removing the need to draw or set up maps, or the need to flip through books for monsters and traps.

Well, yes and no. I can't speak to everyone - in my case, I have plenty of friends in the area that I do game with. The online game is because I also have friends who have moved away, and so the online medium is the only way to game with them. I imagine there are others - even most - were location, rather than difficulty fitting in a game, is the key issue.

Again, I'm not saying one is better or worse - just that it is a tradeoff. In our case, the heavy investment beforehand makes the games themselves easier and quicker to play - and allows extra time investment from one or two people to result in less time spent by the entire group during the game.

But yeah, I think the VTT will really begin to shine with the integration features and ability to easily just port existing content in. And hopefully will become robust enough to also allow a level of customization, custom maps rather than just tiles, etc - at which point it will really have the best of both worlds.

 

[Kzach]

Issues I have with the VTT:

• Typing in the chat window is interrupted by any activity on the table. You literally have to click on the chat window again every time someone does something whilst you're typing. To get to the chat window there are two commands, tab and return, both of which operate on a seemingly random basis. Sometimes tab works, other times it doesn't. Sometimes return (enter) works, sometimes it doesn't. And when you press return to send text to the channel, you have to press it again to get BACK to the chat window because the cursor doesn't stay there.
  
• Nothing is intuitive about it. Right click does something different over here than it does over there. The only way you can do some things is with a certain order of operations that are completely arbitrary and have no visual clues.
  
• The voice chat is just terrible. It's very low quality and there's no way of controlling individual volumes so you get some people you can barely hear and others who are booming in your ear. Then there's the bugginess of it. Sometimes PTT works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes you'll just broadcast everything despite using PTT, and sometimes you'll broadcast nothing at all.
  
• Character and monster importing is rudimentary. You get the basics and that's it. Situational bonuses? Better make up your own new macro. You can't even add it to the dice roll of the power on the fly. Simple things like combat advantage become a headache 'cause you constantly have to remind each other that it applies to the roll that's visible on the screen.
  
• No importing of custom content. Want to use a jpeg map of your setting? Better put it up on Photobucket. Want to drop your favourite D&D adventure module map in for miniatures? Not going to happen. Want a dwarf token that doesn't look like the purple dwarven warlord from PHB1? There can be only one!
  
• The framework is about as barebones as you could possibly get. 4e is better supported in Fantasy Grounds and Maptools.
  
• You can't even target monsters with attacks so you have an extra layer of communication required in order to complete turns. This in turn runs into the above mentioned communication problems, compounding play issues.

I'm sure I'll think of more later on.

 

[wedgeski]

As I recall the beta was put on hiatus recently? That might be why you're perceiving little or no activity. I don't know personally, I haven't been able to try it as yet.

 

[wlmartin]

i'm wondering just how much exposure the vt beta is getting. I only got access to it about a month ago and the forum activity there is pretty dead. From what i gather, there hasn't been much activity on wotc's end either lately.

If you have had a play with it i'd like to hear what you think of it?

Personally i'm not impressed. It's a pale, pale, imitation of what's already out there and offers virtually no incentive to use it over any other vt. The sole saving grace of it is that you can import from the monster builder and character builder. Other than that, it's incredibly clunky, very limited, poorly laid out and implemented and slow.

Sure, it's a beta, but so is maptools and it absolutely wipes the floor with the ddi vt. What's more, it's nothing like the previews we saw way back at the introduction of 4e. That project was scrapped and a new vt team started from scratch. All they've done, however, is reinvent the wheel as an octahedron.

I think they would've been better served just offering an open license to people like the fantasy grounds and maptools folk.

vt?

 

[Kzach]

vt?

Virtual Table. It's a java program that allows multiple people to play a D&D game online using a grid representation, chat, dice macros, etc.

If you have a DDI subscription, go to this page and see if you have a "Launch" button. If you don't, then you're not in the beta.

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Tool (D&D Virtual Table)

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I've played on session as player with the WotCVTT as documented here. It didn't turn me into a VT-lover.

After that session I tried to set up a small adventure to test the DMing side of things, but learned that the effort needed to realise my ideas was too much for me. Other things had a higher priority so I switched to waiting mode. I'll fire up that thing again when some substantial changes are announced.

My first go at a VT has been with Maptools close to three years ago. The players of one campaign had spread all over the world and a VT seemed like a solution. I got the thing up and running and did a test drive employing Rumble's 4e framework. This approach died due to two problems:

1. Players would have to invest some time and effort to get the system to work. With less tec-affine people this might not work.
2. No clear border between the automated and the manual parts. If using a power means hitting one or two buttons, and afterwards manipulating items the manual way, you'd have to remember these breaks in doing things. Either give me (complete) automation or leave it out; three quarters automation doesn't work for me.

In the meantime I've fooled around with still another VT being in beta: Epic Table. ET leaves automation out and focuses on ease of use and reliability. As such it's not too well suited for 3e, 4e and other mechanical games, but I'll use it for a 1e game, soon.

 

[Delgar]

With Maptools, using a 4e Framework (I use deviant null's) the program is far more powerful and useful and easier to use than the VT. I can have create maps quicly, I can import maps and pictures easily. Someone also created a tool to import monsters directly from both MM1 format or MM3 format.

The only thing that I had to do was create the player tokens which took a while as there is no easy import function here.

IF the VTT can get to this level of functionality then it will be useful, until then I'll be using maptools.