How VTT Automation Exacerbates D&D Market Control

[Thomas Shey]

We used a battlemat with dry erase and minis. Didnt have an issue. Though, as GM using VTT PDF maps is pretty sweet and effortless. I like how I can pass notes over to players etc.. Id say as GM I definitely like the VTT better, though as player im more into F2F battlemat minis and paper sheets.

So did we for many years. But our play locations in both groups got such that people would have to constantly hop up and down to see and manipulate the map; the VTT was just more practical.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I just read through the rules update doc that Paizo put out and I am actually going to hold off on PF2E until the new books come out. I don't have any desire to have to learn the game twice.

There's really no overwhelming reason if you hadn't already learned the game to do so; Novemeber is just not that far off.

 

[Jaeger]

PF2 is not an easy game to forgo the automation.

Having the rules - but not having played it; PF2 came across as a game that could get very fiddly on the PC side as you leveled up.

Do you have a sense of what the difference would be playing with automation vs. over the table without?

I know of a few folks that meet F2F and then log into the VTT and play the session out.

We used a battlemat with dry erase and minis. Didnt have an issue. Though, as GM using VTT PDF maps is pretty sweet and effortless. I like how I can pass notes over to players etc.. Id say as GM I definitely like the VTT better, though as player im more into F2F battlemat minis and paper sheets.

I know a guy that just bought a large flat screen tv, laid it flat in a custom table, and runs his campaigns using the table surface for maps. (And to automate Monsters/NPC's for combat)

A little pricey, but it evidently gets the job done...

 

[payn]

Having the rules - but not having played it; PF2 came across as a game that could get very fiddly on the PC side as you leveled up.

I believe it to be the opposite. I think leveling is very easy and the character sheet navigates nicely for the player. Its the GM that has to learn about conditions, abilities, etc.. of gamemastering that can bog down.

Do you have a sense of what the difference would be playing with automation vs. over the table without?

Whenever a PC gets one of those rare buff or debuffs, making sure you add or subtract accurately from everything you do. Remembering the timing of durations and other trackers as well. So, not much different than 3E/PF1, however, PF2 launched in an era of automation so it seems different. Folks also assume PF2 is this totally new beast but a lot of it is easy to intuit if you have any past experience with D&D editions and PF1.

I know a guy that just bought a large flat screen tv, laid it flat in a custom table, and runs his campaigns using the table surface for maps. (And to automate Monsters/NPC's for combat)

A little pricey, but it evidently gets the job done...

I've seen this too. IDK, before pandemic I used a laptop to run as GM. It had my campaign notes, combat tracker, dice roller. I used a battlemat markers and minis for the players and combat. If I started investing in stuff like large flat screens and gaming tables it just seems easier to use a VTT. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I believe it to be the opposite. I think leveling is very easy and the character sheet navigates nicely for the player. Its the GM that has to learn about conditions, abilities, etc.. of gamemastering that can bog down.

I'm not going to say that can't be true--but it seems relatively easy to me compared to, say, D&D3e. Its legitimate to say that's damning with faint praise if you wish.

Whenever a PC gets one of those rare buff or debuffs, making sure you add or subtract accurately from everything you do. Remembering the timing of durations and other trackers as well. So, not much different than 3E/PF1, however, PF2 launched in an era of automation so it seems different. Folks also assume PF2 is this totally new beast but a lot of it is easy to intuit if you have any past experience with D&D editions and PF1.

Honestly, if I had to summarize PF2e, it appears to me to be a more streamlined PF1e/D&D3e with a few D&D4e elements to give it more tactical bite.

I've seen this too. IDK, before pandemic I used a laptop to run as GM. It had my campaign notes, combat tracker, dice roller. I used a battlemat markers and minis for the players and combat. If I started investing in stuff like large flat screens and gaming tables it just seems easier to use a VTT. YMMV.

For a bit we sort of did both; when I first started using Maptool, instead of everyone playing on their laptops we cast it to a large screen TV. After a bit that seemed silly since most people there were running their characters off their laptops anyway...

 

[payn]

I'm not going to say that can't be true--but it seems relatively easy to me compared to, say, D&D3e. Its legitimate to say that's damning with faint praise if you wish.

I dont think its about complexity like it often was in 3E/PF1, its more volume of plates to spin. With VTT you have easy stat sheets for your mobs to track and whatnot, wihtout those you could be tracking quite a bit.

Honestly, if I had to summarize PF2e, it appears to me to be a more streamlined PF1e/D&D3e with a few D&D4e elements to give it more tactical bite.

I think its hugely influenced by 4E and wouldn't down play it. More in common in fact than 3E/PF1. I also disagree about streamlined, PF2 is a different beast. Standardized system based on level and proficiency. It does the same things but in a different and more manageable way.

For a bit we sort of did both; when I first started using Maptool, instead of everyone playing on their laptops we cast it to a large screen TV. After a bit that seemed silly since most people there were running their characters off their laptops anyway...

Only the GM used a device when we played F2F. Its been at least 3 years since then. Not sure if I will ever go back. Not out of lack of want, but out of lack of players.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think its hugely influenced by 4E and wouldn't down play it. More in common in fact than 3E/PF1. I also disagree about streamlined, PF2 is a different beast. Standardized system based on level and proficiency. It does the same things but in a different and more manageable way.

Honestly, just reducing the number of modifier types seems a significant streamlining to me, since besides keep track of less of them, it also means there's less hunting for them (as some are impossible to fish for in practice)

Only the GM used a device when we played F2F. Its been at least 3 years since then. Not sure if I will ever go back. Not out of lack of want, but out of lack of players.

Always a thing. I had a period when I didn't GM for about two years at one point because what I was interested in running, I couldn't find anyone interested in playing.

 

[payn]

Honestly, just reducing the number of modifier types seems a significant streamlining to me, since besides keep track of less of them, it also means there's less hunting for them (as some are impossible to fish for in practice)

Perhaps this is nitpicking on my part, but I can agree to general streamlining for modern designed fantasy RPG. Streamlined 3E/PF1, however, I can not agree with since I see very little of it in PF2.

Always a thing. I had a period when I didn't GM for about two years at one point because what I was interested in running, I couldn't find anyone interested in playing.

I hear that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps this is nitpicking on my part, but I can agree to general streamlining for modern designed fantasy RPG. Streamlined 3E/PF1, however, I can not agree with since I see very little of it in PF2.

How odd. The relationship seems pretty clear to me, even if its an evolutionary offshoot (which you can certainly argue).

 

[payn]

How odd. The relationship seems pretty clear to me, even if its an evolutionary offshoot (which you can certainly argue).

If you see a 4E design path as evolutionary I suppose. To me its very divergent from its base.